Billy Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 The Hebrew does not say "angels" or "divine beings." The Hebrew says bene ha-elohim, which means "sons of the gods." The other options are a theological interpretations masquerading in the guise of a translation. So, again, I ask you the question: according to the Bible, is Satan one of the bene ha-elohim? No equivocation, please.Does it say in Job 1:6 "bene ha-elohim" (בן ben אלהים 'elohiym)? Yes Can you take one verse and build a doctrine that Satan is the literal spiritual child of God the Father and one of his wives? NO. If that were the case then I could make the same argument (that you are trying to make with this passage) with the passage in John 8. Do you believe that the Jews, spoken about by Jesus in verse 44, were the literal spiritual children of the Satan?John 842Jesus said to them, "IF God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.43"Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word.44"You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Bill Hamblin Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 Billy,Are humans children of God? (Mt 5:9; Lk 20:36; Rom 8:16, 1 Jn 3:1-2, etc.)?
Billy Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 Billy,Are humans children of God? (Mt 5:9; Lk 20:36; Rom 8:16, 1 Jn 3:1-2, etc.)?Some are by adoption, i.e. those who receive him and believed in his name.John 112Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of Godâ?? 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
Bill Hamblin Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 Some are by adoption, i.e. those who receive him and believed in his name.John 112Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of Godâ?? 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.I don't see the word "adoption" there. At any rate, since Satan is a son of God, and humans are children of God, isn't there some way in which humans and Satan are brothers?
Billy Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 I don't see the word "adoption" there. At any rate, since Satan is a son of God, and humans are children of God, isn't there some way in which humans and Satan are brothers?Not that I know of.
Bill Hamblin Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 Not that I know of.Like, maybe: you and another son of your father are brothers? Maybe that way?
Billy Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 Like, maybe: you and another son of your father are brothers? Maybe that way?Adam and Eve were the result of a direct creation by God, which is reflected in the genelogy in Luke 3 which states that Adam is a son of God. Satan and other angels are also direct creations of God. But the rest of mankind are not the direct creation of God. People are not born children of God, rather they become children of God when they are born again, and are adopted into Gods family. So to answer your question, no I do not believe that I am the brother of Jesus or of Satan.Luke 3:38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
Bill Hamblin Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 Adam and Eve were the result of a direct creation by God, which is reflected in the genelogy in Luke 3 which states that Adam is a son of God. Satan and other angels are also direct creations of God. But the rest of mankind are not the direct creation of God. People are not born children of God, rather they become children of God when they are born again, and are adopted into Gods family. So to answer your question, no I do not believe that I am the brother of Jesus or of Satan.Luke 3:38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.Of course, that's an interpretation meant avoid the plain implication of the text. If Adam is a son of God, and Satan is a son of God, then at the very least, Satan and Adam are brothers, right?
Billy Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 Of course, that's an interpretation meant avoid the plain implication of the text. If Adam is a son of God, and Satan is a son of God, then at the very least, Satan and Adam are brothers, right?Angels and humans are different, although it is correct that Adam and Satan are direct creations of God, I would not call them brothers despite them both being called the sons of God. It is important to interpret a verse in light of the entire Bible. For example, by pulling out a single verse in John 8 you could come to the conclusion that the unbelieving Jews were literal sons of the Devil, which obviously is not true.John 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire.
Bill Hamblin Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 Angels and humans are different, although it is correct that Adam and Satan are direct creations of God, I would not call them brothers despite them both being called the sons of God. It is important to interpret a verse in light of the entire Bible. For example, by pulling out a single verse in John 8 you could come to the conclusion that the unbelieving Jews were literal sons of the Devil, which obviously is not true.So, theologically you disagree with what the Bible literally says. That's fine. But would at least you recognize that if Adam is a son of God and Satan is a son of God, then it might be possible to interpret the text by understanding them as brothers in some way?As to the the Jews as sons of Satan; since some use of sonship the Bible is metaphorical, would you agree that one can be a Christian and maintain that the sonship of Jesus is metaphorical? In other words, the problem is which passage of scripture should be interpreted literally, and which metaphorically.
Billy Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 So, theologically you disagree with what the Bible literally says. That's fine. But would at least you recognize that if Adam is a son of God and Satan is a son of God, then it might be possible to interpret the text by understanding them as brothers in some way?My theology disagrees with the Bible because I say the Adam and Satan are not spiritual brothers who were conceived by a heavenly mother? Then that would also apply to the majority of Christians worldwide.I would have to say the same about your beliefs, that they are not Biblical, especially with requard to the fact the God the Father was once a man, worked his way to Godhood, has a wife who he procreates spiritual children with in a pre-earth life.As to the the Jews as sons of Satan; since some use of sonship the Bible is metaphorical, would you agree that one can be a Christian and maintain that the sonship of Jesus is metaphorical? In other words, the problem is which passage of scripture should be interpreted literally, and which metaphorically.I think that you have to let scripture interpret scripture. And what I mean is that there are difficult passages to understand, and other passages that discuss similar topics are easier to understand and may be worded more clearly. If you believe that scripture is God breathed, then there should be internal consistency. For example, in John 1 it states "12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God". This implies that not all humanity are children of God, but that some become children by faith. So a child of God is not a literal child of God (i.e. spiritual offsring) but rather one who is brought into God's family, which I previously used the word adoption. When you look at the verse in John 8 which states, "44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire." With the understanding gained from John 1, I realize that the children of God are not literal children, it makes my understanding of John 8:44 easier, and in like manner the Jews were not literal children of the Devil, but children who follow Satan, in a similar way that the children of God follow Him.
Bill Hamblin Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 My theology disagrees with the Bible because I say the Adam and Satan are not spiritual brothers who were conceived by a heavenly mother? Then that would also apply to the majority of Christians worldwide.I would have to say the same about your beliefs, that they are not Biblical, especially with requard to the fact the God the Father was once a man, worked his way to Godhood, has a wife who he procreates spiritual children with in a pre-earth life.I think that you have to let scripture interpret scripture. And what I mean is that there are difficult passages to understand, and other passages that discuss similar topics are easier to understand and may be worded more clearly. If you believe that scripture is God breathed, then there should be internal consistency. For example, in John 1 it states "12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God". This implies that not all humanity are children of God, but that some become children by faith. So a child of God is not a literal child of God (i.e. spiritual offsring) but rather one who is brought into God's family, which I previously used the word adoption. When you look at the verse in John 8 which states, "44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire." With the understanding gained from John 1, I realize that the children of God are not literal children, it makes my understanding of John 8:44 easier, and in like manner the Jews were not literal children of the Devil, but children who follow Satan, in a similar way that the children of God follow Him.You didn't answer my questions. Care to do so, or not? If not, then this discussion is obviously over.The fact that the Bible is metaphorical sometimes and literal sometimes is obvious. How we can determine which passages are meant to be literal or metaphorical is not so obvious. By the way, the fact that there are different interpretations of the Bible is not lost on me, but unpacking your assertions about "God-breathed" requiring complete internal consistency is an entirely different topic. To reframe your claim: do you believe if there are any internal inconsistency, then the Bible is not "God-breathed"?
Anijen Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 Billy writes;"My theology disagrees with the Bible..."Bill Hamblin you have my admiration, I can die now.
Billy Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 Billy writes;"My theology disagrees with the Bible..."Why don't you finish my quote? My theology disagrees with the Bible because I say the Adam and Satan are not spiritual brothers who were conceived by a heavenly mother? Then that would also apply to the majority of Christians worldwide.I would have to say the same about your beliefs, that they are not Biblical, especially with requard to the fact the God the Father was once a man, worked his way to Godhood, has a wife who he procreates spiritual children with in a pre-earth life.
Billy Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 The fact that the Bible is metaphorical sometimes and literal sometimes is obvious. How we can determine which passages are meant to be literal or metaphorical is not so obvious."The Golden Rule of InterpretationWhen the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning, unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise."The Footsteps of the Messiah Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum
Anijen Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 Why don't you finish my quote?Okay I will.My theology disagrees with the Bible because I say the Adam and Satan are not spiritual brothers who were conceived by a heavenly mother?So you either disagree with the Bible like you wrote. Or you agree that the Bible says that Adam and Satan are spiritual brothers who were conceived by a heavenly mother?Your words bro not mine and Bill Hamblin still has my admiration!
Anijen Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 This is my emphasis not Billy's but it seems this is what he is saying'"The Golden Rule of InterpretationWhen the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning, unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.don't match up with my own interpretation.The Footsteps of the Messiah Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum
Billy Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 This is my emphasis not Billy's but it seems this is what he is saying'"The Golden Rule of InterpretationWhen the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning, unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.don't match up with my own interpretation.The Footsteps of the Messiah Dr. Arnold G. FruchtenbaumSo lets test your theory.Who is the father of the Jews that Jesus was speaking to in John 8:44?John 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire.
Anijen Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 So lets test your theory.Who is the father of the Jews that Jesus was speaking to in John 8:44?John 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire.I agree, so now what?
Bill Hamblin Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 "The Golden Rule of InterpretationWhen the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning, unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise."The Footsteps of the Messiah Dr. Arnold G. FruchtenbaumI'm convinced.
Bill Hamblin Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 So lets test your theory.Who is the father of the Jews that Jesus was speaking to in John 8:44?John 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire.So you're not going to answer my question?
Billy Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 So you're not going to answer my question?Which one?
Anijen Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 Which one?I don't know which one Professor Hamblin was referring to but I would like you to answer post #325
Billy Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 I don't know which one Professor Hamblin was referring to but I would like you to answer post #325See post #326
Billy Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 To reframe your claim: do you believe if there are any internal inconsistency, then the Bible is not "God-breathed"?This may be the question that you wanted me to answer. Below is my post that likely prompted your questionIf you believe that scripture is God breathed, then there should be internal consistency.I believe that Scripture IS God Breathed and internally consistant in the original manuscripts. The big problem is that we do not have the original manuscripts. That is why in my post I said there "should be" internal consistency, which I think is true for the majority of the Bible. But I do believe that there are a few inconsistencies in the Bible that we have today.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.