Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Creator or Creators

LDS4EVER

By LDS4EVER
in Miscellaneous

Recommended Posts

johnny Veteran

johnny

Posted
Posted
Paul Osborne  writes,

Gen 1:26

God looks just like a man and he said to those who were with him, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness

Men are made in the image of the Son of God.

The God who alone spread out the heavens "is not a man, as I am" (Job 9:32)

Job 9

7 Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars.

8 Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.

15 Whom, though I were righteous, yet would I not answer, but I would make supplication to my judge.

32 For he is not a man, as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment.

Link to comment
RebAvomai Contributor

RebAvomai

Posted
Posted
You guys were talking about the meaning of God in Gen. 1:1.

I have found an online Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (I'm a big fan) and heres the entry: Lexicon Results for 'elohiym (Strong's 0430)

BS'D

Shalom Jon,

1) (plural)

a) rulers, judges

cool.gif divine ones

c) angels

d) gods

2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)

a) god, goddess

cool.gif godlike one

c) works or special possessions of G-d

d) the (true) G-d

e) G-d

Now, take a look t the Hebrew

"Bereisheet barah Elokim et hashamayim v

Link to comment
Paul Osborne Veteran

Paul Osborne

Posted
Posted

Furthermore, Johnny:

Christ is made in the image of his Father.

That's all I need to know. You try to sell me something snakey like the one in the garden - but I'm not buying.

We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ and you better believe that his Father will be right there by his side - arms, legs, eyes, feet, and all.

I look forward to ascending to my Father as Christ did. I will fall upon his neck and weep. What you do is your business but you can't stop me from seeing my Father face to face as one man speaks to another.

Paul O

Link to comment
johnny Veteran

johnny

Posted
Posted
Paul Osborne  writes,

I firmly believe that God looks like man and we look like him, even the Father who sits on a throne holding a book in the presence of all who live in heaven. I believe that his Son is also a Man, even the Man Christ Jesus!

I believe like Thomas:

John 20

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

If the Father isn't a Man; what do you think he is; an animal, a monster perhaps? I want nothing to do with the idea that God isn't a Man in whose image I am made.

Jesus is the only Son of the Father and he is God himself

Link to comment
gospelstuff Collaborator

gospelstuff

Posted
Posted

Brother Joseph spoke on this very well.

All this confusion among professed translators is for want of drinking another draught.

The head God organized the heavens and the earth. I defy all the world to refute me. In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth. Now the learned priests and the people rage, and the heathen imagine a vain thing. If we pursue the Hebrew text further, it reads, "Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aashamayeen vehau auraits"

Link to comment
johnny Veteran

johnny

Posted
Posted
gospel stuff writes,

The head God organized the heavens and the earth.

God alone created the universe, freely, directly and without any help

In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation.

The Father, God, the Creator made all things by himself, that is, by Son and the Spirit, they are "his hands"

God created the universe by his Word, the Son, and by his Creator Spirit, the giver of life

The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through
Link to comment
rhinomelon Veteran

rhinomelon

Posted
Posted

I was going to jump in with the whole singular words used with the plural "elohim", but Reb beat me to it. Very nice :ph34r: As far as "family" goes, while it is an interesting parallel, I would be somewhat leery of applied the convolutions of American English to the ancient Hebrew language and mindset. I can also think of words that look plural but really have a singular meaning. Headquarters, for instance.

While this is turning into a yesnoyesnoyesno little debate, I would still point out that Paul seems to be reading a great deal into the biblical text. And he has every right to take issue with me when I say that, too <_< Christ is the image of the invisible God, and says himself that God is a Spirit in John 4:24. Then at the end of Luke the same word is used for "ghost", which Jesus defines as "a being that has not flesh and bones". Then, of course, there is the whole matter of God becoming flesh, at the beginning of John. And the matter of the fulness of the Godhead dwelling bodily in Christ. If God already has a body, why would this be such a big deal to Paul?

And let us not get sucked into colorful misrepresentations of the trinitarian doctrine held by mainstream Christianity. God is not a "three-headed monster" nor is God some "glorious gas without form". God didn't create out of loneliness, nor did He simply sit on his thumbs for a few billion years before deciding to create something. Just trying to avoid amusing, though ultimately inconsequential rabbit trails :angry:

A discussion about different ways to view the imago dei (beyond the "I'm a man so God's a man" position) might be fruitful, but that would definitely be a momentous hijacking :P:unsure:

Anyway, interesting thoughts, everybody. Take care :blink:

Link to comment
RebAvomai Contributor

RebAvomai

Posted
Posted

BS'D

Shalom LDS4Ever,

elokim can be (and is) plural and still have the singular verb.

Genreally no. I think there are maybe 5 exceptions to this rule, and this passage is not one of them.

I'm no English major but I hope I made my point. If the writer of Genesis felt God (the creator) was singular, then he should have used the singular noun.

I would think the English language would be moot on this facet of discussion. I think the fundamental flaw in your reasoning here is that Elokim becomes singular due to the context.

Link to comment
LDS4EVER Proficient

LDS4EVER

Posted
  • Author
Posted
BS'D

Shalom LDS4Ever,

elokim can be (and is) plural and still have the singular verb.

Genreally no. I think there are maybe 5 exceptions to this rule, and this passage is not one of them.

I'm no English major but I hope I made my point. If the writer of Genesis felt God (the creator) was singular, then he should have used the singular noun.

I would think the English language would be moot on this facet of discussion. I think the fundamental flaw in your reasoning here is that Elokim becomes singular due to the context.

Except for one thing:

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

I stand by my interpretation. I could care less if you agree or not. The plural subject agrees with the singular verb and is in agreement with verse 26.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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