Jump to content
IGNORED

Hebrew Professor and the Gap Theory


Guest shiloh357

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,033
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   67
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  12/26/2013
  • Status:  Offline

 

 

 

Speaking of literary devices, the words "And God said" appear 6 times in Genesis 1.  Did God actually speak or is this a literary device conveying a different meaning?

Yep, it means that God spoke.   The Bible says in Hebrews: 

 

By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

(Heb 11:3)   The word used for "word" in Greek is "rhema" which refers to the uttered/spoken word of God

 

Ps. 33:6 also confirms this: 

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

(Psa 33:6)

 

 

So God has a mouth and breath just like us?  :confused:    What does God breath? 

 

It's not saying that God has a physical mouth, but God spoke, nonetheless. 

 

 

But if you are going to take theses verses that literal you have to account for the phrase "breath of his mouth".  You cant have it both ways. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

 

 

 

 

Speaking of literary devices, the words "And God said" appear 6 times in Genesis 1.  Did God actually speak or is this a literary device conveying a different meaning?

Yep, it means that God spoke.   The Bible says in Hebrews: 

 

By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

(Heb 11:3)   The word used for "word" in Greek is "rhema" which refers to the uttered/spoken word of God

 

Ps. 33:6 also confirms this: 

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

(Psa 33:6)

 

 

So God has a mouth and breath just like us?  :confused:    What does God breath? 

 

It's not saying that God has a physical mouth, but God spoke, nonetheless. 

 

 

But if you are going to take theses verses that literal you have to account for the phrase "breath of his mouth".  You cant have it both ways. 

 

I do take that phrase literally.   I just don't take it at face-value.   The Bible uses anthropormophisms when it speaks of God having hands, eyes, arms, breath, ears, etc. 

 

That is used in the poetic imagery of Psalms.  I take it literally as an anthropomorphism, because that is what it is.  I don't take it at face-value, as if God has lungs and breathes air.

 

You still don't get the concept of "literal" do you??

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,033
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   67
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  12/26/2013
  • Status:  Offline

 

 

 

 

 

Speaking of literary devices, the words "And God said" appear 6 times in Genesis 1.  Did God actually speak or is this a literary device conveying a different meaning?

Yep, it means that God spoke.   The Bible says in Hebrews: 

 

By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

(Heb 11:3)   The word used for "word" in Greek is "rhema" which refers to the uttered/spoken word of God

 

Ps. 33:6 also confirms this: 

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

(Psa 33:6)

 

 

So God has a mouth and breath just like us?  :confused:    What does God breath? 

 

It's not saying that God has a physical mouth, but God spoke, nonetheless. 

 

 

But if you are going to take theses verses that literal you have to account for the phrase "breath of his mouth".  You cant have it both ways. 

 

I do take that phrase literally.   I just don't take it at face-value.   The Bible uses anthropormophisms when it speaks of God having hands, eyes, arms, breath, ears, etc. 

 

That is used in the poetic imagery of Psalms.  I take it literally as an anthropomorphism, because that is what it is.  I don't take it at face-value, as if God has lungs and breathes air.

 

You still don't get the concept of "literal" do you??

 

 

Oh I get it, I also get you are highly inconsistent.  You take one verse of of 22 words, the first 10 words mean God had an actual voice, the second 12 are an anthropomorphism.   Has it every occurred to you the whole verse is using anthropomorphism and not just the 2nd half?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
Oh I get it, I also get you are highly inconsistent. 

 

No you don't get it and i am not being inconsistent. You simply don't know what you are talking about.

 

 

You take one verse of of 22 words, the first 10 words mean God had an actual voice, the second 12 are an anthropomorphism.

 

The Bible in Genesis and Hebrews says that God spoke.  I never said anything about a voice.  God can manifest a voice and He did at least twice during the life and ministry of Jesus.   All I said is what the Bible says, that God spoke the universe into existence and He did.  

 

And yes the phrase abouit God's breath is an anthropomorphism.  I realize that you really, really, want to push this because you are desperate to make God speaking in Genesis a figurative device, but it's not a figurative device.  God really does speak and He does it all over the Bible, like it or not. 

 

Has it every occurred to you the whole verse is using anthropomorphism and not just the 2nd half?

 

No, because that is not how an anthropomorpshism works.   An anthropomorphism is when you give a human characteristic to a nonhuman creature or inanimate object.

 

When we refer to the "leg" of a table, or the "arms" of a chair, that is an anthropomorphism.   The Bible uses anthropomorphsims with God all over the Bible.  The entire verse is not an athropomorphism.   If the Bible says that the "eyes of the Lord are looking to and fro" it doesn't mean that "looking" is an anthropomorphism.   The Bible says something about God's mouth, that doesn't mean that God speaking, is an anthroporphism.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,033
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   67
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  12/26/2013
  • Status:  Offline

 

Oh I get it, I also get you are highly inconsistent. 

 

No you don't get it and i am not being inconsistent. You simply don't know what you are talking about.

 

 

You take one verse of of 22 words, the first 10 words mean God had an actual voice, the second 12 are an anthropomorphism.

 

The Bible in Genesis and Hebrews says that God spoke.  I never said anything about a voice.  God can manifest a voice and He did at least twice during the life and ministry of Jesus.   All I said is what the Bible says, that God spoke the universe into existence and He did.  

 

And yes the phrase abouit God's breath is an anthropomorphism.  I realize that you really, really, want to push this because you are desperate to make God speaking in Genesis a figurative device, but it's not a figurative device.  God really does speak and He does it all over the Bible, like it or not. 

 

Has it every occurred to you the whole verse is using anthropomorphism and not just the 2nd half?

 

No, because that is not how an anthropomorpshism works.   An anthropomorphism is when you give a human characteristic to a nonhuman creature or inanimate object.

 

When we refer to the "leg" of a table, or the "arms" of a chair, that is an anthropomorphism.   The Bible uses anthropomorphsims with God all over the Bible.  The entire verse is not an athropomorphism.   If the Bible says that the "eyes of the Lord are looking to and fro" it doesn't mean that "looking" is an anthropomorphism.   The Bible says something about God's mouth, that doesn't mean that God speaking, is an anthroporphism.  

 

 

anthropomorphism can be actions as well as body parts.  In Ex 32 God "changed his mind", which of course is not to be confused with   anthropopathisms.   I realize that you are desperate to make God speaking in Genesis not a figurative device, but it is figurative device.

Edited by LookingForAnswers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

 

anthropomorphism can be actions as well as body parts.  In Ex 32 God "changed his mind", which of course is not to be confused with   anthropopathisms.   I realize that you are desperate to make God speaking in Genesis not a figurative device, but it is figurative device.

 

God changing His mind is not an anthropomorphism.  It is an anthropopathism.   Tyndale Commentary on Exodus has this to say about that:

 

"Anthropopathism is a figure here used by which God’s activity is explained, by analogy, in strictly human terms. The meaning is not that God changed His mind; still less that He regretted something that He had intended to do. It means, in biblical language, that He now embarked on a different course of action from that already suggested as a possibility, owing to some new factor which is usually mentioned in the context. In the Bible, it is clear that God’s promises and warnings are always conditional on man’s response: this is most clearly set out in Ezekiel 33:13-16. We are not to think of Moses as altering God’s purpose towards Israel by his prayer, but as carrying it out: Moses was never more like God than in such moments, for he shared God’s mind and loving purpose"

 

God speaking in Genesis is not an anthropomorphism.  If it said that God opened His mouth and spoke, the reference to his mouth would be anthropomorphic. Anytime God is given human characteristics it is anthropompomorphism.     Our ability to speak came from God, so God speaking isn't something that humans do and be attributed God.  Our ability speak is part of being made in God's image.  

 

So again, God is the original speaker.  He is the first person in the universe to speak and so it is silly to call that an anthropomorphism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,033
  • Content Per Day:  0.28
  • Reputation:   67
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  12/26/2013
  • Status:  Offline

 

 

anthropomorphism can be actions as well as body parts.  In Ex 32 God "changed his mind", which of course is not to be confused with   anthropopathisms.   I realize that you are desperate to make God speaking in Genesis not a figurative device, but it is figurative device.

 

God changing His mind is not an anthropomorphism.  It is an anthropopathism.   Tyndale Commentary on Exodus has this to say about that:

 

"Anthropopathism is a figure here used by which God’s activity is explained, by analogy, in strictly human terms. The meaning is not that God changed His mind; still less that He regretted something that He had intended to do. It means, in biblical language, that He now embarked on a different course of action from that already suggested as a possibility, owing to some new factor which is usually mentioned in the context. In the Bible, it is clear that God’s promises and warnings are always conditional on man’s response: this is most clearly set out in Ezekiel 33:13-16. We are not to think of Moses as altering God’s purpose towards Israel by his prayer, but as carrying it out: Moses was never more like God than in such moments, for he shared God’s mind and loving purpose"

 

God speaking in Genesis is not an anthropomorphism.  If it said that God opened His mouth and spoke, the reference to his mouth would be anthropomorphic. Anytime God is given human characteristics it is anthropompomorphism.     Our ability to speak came from God, so God speaking isn't something that humans do and be attributed God.  Our ability speak is part of being made in God's image.  

 

So again, God is the original speaker.  He is the first person in the universe to speak and so it is silly to call that an anthropomorphism.

 

 

Just about every mammal can speak, how is that a gift from God just for humans?  Where does the Bible say that the ability to speak is a gift of God?  You are grasping at straws now.   Just for fun, what language did God speak? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

 

Just about every mammal can speak, how is that a gift from God just for humans?  Where does the Bible say that the ability to speak is a gift of God?  You are grasping at straws now.   Just for fun, what language did God speak? 

 

LOL  that is just ridiculous.  Animals don't speak.   Speaking is uniquely human; we use words and communicate ideas, thoughts and information  Dogs and cats do not "speak." Stop being absurd.   The person grasping at straws is you. 

 

Doesn't matter what language God used.  What matters is that He spoke.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,323
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,301
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

Speaking of literary devices, the words "And God said" appear 6 times in Genesis 1.  Did God actually speak or is this a literary device conveying a different meaning?  If an actual voice and words didnt come out of God's mouth, would that make this a figurative device?  Does God have a mouth in the same way we humans do?

 

 

Does the verse state that God spoke through His physical mouth?

 

You are attempting to apply temporal, physical limitations to an eternal, spiritual being. You observe that humans speak through our mouths, you then extrapolate that observation to assume all beings (both physical and spiritual) require physical mouths to utter speech. That assumption is not justified. If anything – it is we physical beings who are subject to such limitations.

 

When God manifested Himself to Moses as a burning bush, did that burning bush require a physical mouth to speak to Moses? Is there any reference to the burning bush’s mouth in the passage – or did it simply appear as a physical manifestation of a burning bush?

 

If God speaks into our spirit (instead of our ears), is it really speech – or should we call it something else?

 

Ultimately, the premise of your point is an assumption that God cannot utter speech without a physical mouth – but you have failed to qualify this premise. I think this premise unnecessarily and unjustifiably limits God. I therefore have no problem with God speaking – regardless of the presence of a physical mouth.

 

Furthermore, even if God was limited (such that He requires a physical mouth to speak), He is perfectly capable of creating a physical mouth for that very purpose.

 

So there is no intrinsic, exegetical reason to necessarily apply figurative assumptions to scriptural occurrences of “God said”.

Edited by Tristen
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  223
  • Content Per Day:  0.06
  • Reputation:   27
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/07/2014
  • Status:  Offline

 

It seems that what we disagree on is what exactly are the Basic and Absolute Truths that can be known. Specifically, is YEC the only possible interpretation of Gen 1.

I guess what is needed is an understanding on what the nature of "interpretation" is. 

 (snip 3 paragraphs that are basically redundant)

 

So, from the stanpoint of an objective activity like exegesis, the ONLY possible interpretation of a text is the meaning the author gives to it.  I am to read the text in the light of the object the author has in view.   So, interpretation is ALWAYS about find the literal meaning of the text.   To do that means I need to take into account the context, cultural idioms, figures of speech and so and so forth, and look for the literal meaning behind those devices.

 

Question: Here, you use "literal" specifically to mean author's intent, and not word for word face value (unless intended by the author), right?  That's what I'm getting from the context.  It's hard to tell with you, sometimes. lol

 

If so, I agree with this.

 

 

Here, again, our area of contention seems to be which doctrines are vitally important to the integrity of Scripture.

The doctrine of creation is the source of our other doctrines.   Genesis 1-3 is seedbed for most, if not all,  major Bible doctrines.  The doctrines of sin and it origin, marriage, judgement, salvation, shedding of blood for remission of sins, the sovereignty of God, the incommunicable attributes of God, the redemptive Nature of God, the Word of God, eternal life,  and so many others all have their origins in the very beginning right back to the first two or three chapters of the Bible.  The first Messianic Prophecy is found right there at the very beginning of the book of Genesis.   That makes creation a very important doctrine, indeed.  Genesis 1-3 provides us with an explanation for why redemption is necessary and why Jesus had to come to earth and die for our sins.

 

I agree with all of this.

 

What's more those doctrines are predicated on a literal reading of Genesis 1-3.  If Genesis 1-3 is just some symbolic story, full of metaphors and is not meant ot be understood literally, as some suggest, it does damage to those doctrines.   For example, if the fall in Genesis 3 isn't a literal event, then the Bible's explanation for the origin of sin doesn't make sense anymore.

 

Question: In this section, do you mean "literal" as in author's intent or as in word for word face value?  I mean, I know technically you believe both, but which are you referring to in this section?  In context, it seems you are referring to a face value meaning specifically, since you mention metaphors and such.

 

If so, I disagree.  I don't think seeing metaphors and symbolism in Genesis does any harm whatsoever to any doctrines (other than YEC) or the integrity and inerrancy of Scripture.  Note: that is not me saying that I believe Genesis is a fairytale or fiction or anything.  I believe it actually happened.  Just likely not word for word.  And I don't believe it was intended by the author to be read that way.

 

By the way, I don't recall anyone here saying the Fall in Genesis didn't happen.

 

One important doctrine of the Word of God is inerrancy.  If the Bible can't be trusted in Genesis to get the story straight, are there other places in the Bible that we should be skeptical about?   A person sitting on the fence, who doesn't know if they believe the Bible is true or not will not be inspired to trust the Bible at all if we argue that the Bible's account in Genesis can be taken literally, as written.  If they can successfully challenge what the Bible says about their origins, they have a basis for challenging what the Bible say about their sin and need for salvation.

 

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

 

 

 

As someone who has sat on that fence, let me just testify about this a bit. 

 

YEC was a crack in my Shield.  It held for a long time, but eventually it fell apart.  Actually, it shattered. Once my Shield broke, the rest of my Armor didn't last long. I didn't pick up the pieces immediately.  I considered walking away for good, leaving the broken shards of my faith behind.  I almost did.  It is entirely by the Grace of God that I didn't.   For awhile, I wandered.  On the surface, I was still a Christian, but underneath...well, Jesus was just a nice guy.  I liked the idea of him.  Plus, there was Pascal's Wager (selfish reason), and...I didn't want to make my mom cry. On the other hand, there were some issues with YEC that I couldn't resolve logically/biblically, therefore Christianity didn't make any sense.  I wanted to believe.  I sooo wanted to believe.  I even prayed to the God I no longer had faith in  not to let me go.  I was barely hanging on by a thread.

   I can honestly say this as someone approaching Christianity without faith in the inerrancy of the Bible that one major thing holding me back was the required belief in a young earth and/or 6 day creation.  I'd been defending it since I was six years old (I told someone that dinosaurs didn't exist because they weren't in the bible, lol).  I couldn't defend it anymore.  I didn't believe it. 

  One day, I listened to a podcast by a couple of Christian guys who defended the old earth position. It was one I'd never considered before, because I was afraid if I'd honestly considered any position other then YEC, my faith would crumble (which happened anyway...).   If I had listened to them before I'd lost my faith, I would have rejected what they said without a second thought.  Probably scoffed and rolled my eyes, as well.  Now, though, I had nothing to lose.  I was so spiritually bankrupt that I listened with rapt attention.  They were making sense.

  I went back to where I left the shards of my Shield, and started picking them up.   Inerrancy of Scripture, Godhood of Jesus, Salvation through Grace,  these I grabbed first.  The weaker parts, the pieces that were irreparably damaged, I left behind.  I gave the remaining pieces to God and he forged a new Shield, a stronger Shield.

 

 

Couple things about this:

1. Because of my experiences, this area is sort of a sore spot for me. If I seem obsessive, this is why.

2.  This is an historical narrative (autobiographical). Notice that there are a few analogies/metaphors/symbolism throughout, yet the entire narrative is still historically accurate.  Just throwing that out there... ;)

 

 

There are no Inquisitions or Crusades in our recent past, but that doesn't mean our hands don't have blood on them. And our doctrines are a mess! We, as a body, are nowhere near infallible. To claim otherwise is the highest level of arrogance and hubris. (And this is altogether a different topic.)

But I can give another example. There was a man who lived some time ago, really smart Jewish guy. Prodigy of Scripture. He heard about a group of heretics or apostates, and focused his energies on 'correcting' this problem. Until Jesus smacked him upside the head and said "Saul, why do you persecute Me?"  (true story) ;)

Yeah, so if we hold to the inerrancy of Scripture we are like the apostle Paul who murdered Christians???   Who is calling anyone a heretic??   No need to resort to the martyr/victim card.   That's what people do when they don't have solid argument to present.   They pretend that opposition to their position amounts to persecution.  It is an emotional and manipulative tactic.

 

What? I...  :blink: Wow...you so completely missed my point that I'm not even going to comment.

 

Okay, yes I will.  My point with Saul was that he thought he knew the truth but was wrong.  He was a student of Scripture. And he was wrong.

 

And I didn't say anything about the inerrancy of Scripture.  I hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, so I don't understand why you added that...

 

 

 

 

My point is this: You and I (and any believer who has ever lived) are not infallible. If someone wants to come to Jesus ('cause, you know, He's the Door. haha ), but they don't agree with all of our minor pet doctrines, who are we to stand in their way?

No one is claiming personal infallbility.  What we are proclaiming is the infalliblitiy of Scripture.    The whole jab at people like me, accusing me claiming infallbility is a way deflecting away from the fact that you don't really have a substantive response to the OP.  So far, no one has really responded to the substance of the claims in the OP.   All they can do attack me as if I think I am infallible just so they can have something to knock down because the OP makes an airtight case and they cannot bring themselves to admit it.

 

Did someone mention the martyr/victim card? :huh:

 

I feel like I struck a nerve.  I will back away slowly, now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...