Does the Hebrew translation of Genesis 1:1 leave the door open that Go

[RobSigmon]

Awesome comments all.  I've always been slow to put a limit of what God could do and I don't believe in evolution but if God made us male and female in His image on this planet for fellowship, it seems reasonable that He would make human life on other planets if He so chose.  Not wookies or yodas or green or grey aliens but humans just like us.  C.S. Lewis explores this theory in his space trilogy works but he takes the position that the creatures God made on Mars and Venus were non-human.  I think that is possible but it seems more likely they would be human.

[Guest shiloh357]

I don't think anyone is discussing what God can or cannot do.   But there is no evidence of life out there.  Just wishful thinking. 

[other one]

OakWood. I apologize. Please, forgive me. I realized that we're arguing the same side. Again, please forgive me.

You have to be careful doing that because it can easily lead to violent agreement.

[Tristen]

Hi Rob,

 

The Bible says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say. Once you start entertaining the idea of scripture 'leaving doors open' to unstated possibilities, you move away from sound doctrine, and into the realm of unsupported speculation and subjective opinion. Attempting to justify unstated possibilities through scripture is called eisogesis (i.e. reading ideas into scripture that aren't actually there). Eisogesis represents an illegitimate interpretation methodology.

[Bonky]

Hi Rob,

 

The Bible says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say. Once you start entertaining the idea of scripture 'leaving doors open' to unstated possibilities, you move away from sound doctrine, and into the realm of unsupported speculation and subjective opinion. Attempting to justify unstated possibilities through scripture is called eisogesis (i.e. reading ideas into scripture that aren't actually there). Eisogesis represents an illegitimate interpretation methodology.

One could argue that Christians do just that [Eisegesis] every time they assert that the old testament anticipates the coming of Jesus of Nazareth. Or am I wrong here?

[Tristen]

 

Hi Rob,

 

The Bible says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say. Once you start entertaining the idea of scripture 'leaving doors open' to unstated possibilities, you move away from sound doctrine, and into the realm of unsupported speculation and subjective opinion. Attempting to justify unstated possibilities through scripture is called eisogesis (i.e. reading ideas into scripture that aren't actually there). Eisogesis represents an illegitimate interpretation methodology.

One could argue that Christians do just that [Eisegesis] every time they assert that the old testament anticipates the coming of Jesus of Nazareth. Or am I wrong here?

 

 

 

Hi Bonky, You said, “One could argue that Christians do just that [Eisegesis] every time they assert that the old testament anticipates the coming of Jesus of Nazareth. Or am I wrong here?”

 

Unfortunately, you are “wrong here”. Associating Jesus Christ with the promised Messiah/Saviour of the Old Testament is explicitly, unambiguously stated in the New Testament. A massive amount of the New Testament is devoted to this very idea – often quoting the Old Testament to make this case. Therefore, the prominence of this concept in the New Testament makes Christian agreement a matter of Exegesis (Taking ideas out of scripture that are actually there).

[Bonky]

Hi Bonky, You said, “One could argue that Christians do just that [Eisegesis] every time they assert that the old testament anticipates the coming of Jesus of Nazareth. Or am I wrong here?”

 

Unfortunately, you are “wrong here”. Associating Jesus Christ with the promised Messiah/Saviour of the Old Testament is explicitly, unambiguously stated in the New Testament. A massive amount of the New Testament is devoted to this very idea – often quoting the Old Testament to make this case. Therefore, the prominence of this concept in the New Testament makes Christian agreement a matter of Exegesis (Taking ideas out of scripture that are actually there).

Right the New Testament....I'm talking about the Old Testament, where is it stated there?

P.S. Another way to put it how do I know the NT writers aren't doing the same thing[eisegesis]?

Edited April 3, 2015 by Bonky

[Tristen]

 

Hi Bonky, You said, “One could argue that Christians do just that [Eisegesis] every time they assert that the old testament anticipates the coming of Jesus of Nazareth. Or am I wrong here?”

 

Unfortunately, you are “wrong here”. Associating Jesus Christ with the promised Messiah/Saviour of the Old Testament is explicitly, unambiguously stated in the New Testament. A massive amount of the New Testament is devoted to this very idea – often quoting the Old Testament to make this case. Therefore, the prominence of this concept in the New Testament makes Christian agreement a matter of Exegesis (Taking ideas out of scripture that are actually there).

Right the New Testament....I'm talking about the Old Testament, where is it stated there?

P.S. Another way to put it how do I know the NT writers aren't doing the same thing[eisegesis]?

 

 

I believe that's called moving the goalposts.

[Bonky]

I believe that's called moving the goalposts.

From your perspective I guess you can claim that you aren't adding anything to scripture, but an outsider can still accuse that of those who potentially have.

[Enoch2021]

 

Hi Rob,

 

The Bible says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say. Once you start entertaining the idea of scripture 'leaving doors open' to unstated possibilities, you move away from sound doctrine, and into the realm of unsupported speculation and subjective opinion. Attempting to justify unstated possibilities through scripture is called eisogesis (i.e. reading ideas into scripture that aren't actually there). Eisogesis represents an illegitimate interpretation methodology.

One could argue that Christians do just that [Eisegesis] every time they assert that the old testament anticipates the coming of Jesus of Nazareth. Or am I wrong here?

 

 

 

===============================================================================================================

 

Sometimes it doesn't say it....it Shows:

 

ca 1200 years before Christ...

If you follow Numbers 2 and map out what EXACTLY is being portrayed with the instructions for the camp, you get this from the air.....

 

 

 

800 Years before Crucifixion was even invented...

(Psalms 22:11-18) "Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.  {12} Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.  {13} They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion.  {14} I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.  {15} My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.  {16} For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.  {17} I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.  {18} They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture."

 

Sounds like a FIRST PERSON account of Hanging On A Cross.

 

(Numbers 21:9) "And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived."

 

Serpent = Symbol of Sin

Brass =  Idiomatic of Judgement

 

(John 3:14-15) "¶  And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:  {15}  That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

 

 

 

 

There's roughly 300 more but I think this should do it.

 

** Slides courtesy of Dr. Chuck Missler

 

regards