-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Genesis 1
- Thread starter Mister Emu
- Start date
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
That's easy... it's called Godeon; the color of God. Next question...
Melody
Well-Known Member
I have to agree with ND. When the bible says "In his image He created them", I believe it is in his spiritual image. Either that or we're talking about a being that is an hermaphrodite and, while that is certainly possible, it strikes me that such a powerful being would have no need to be limited by a corporeal body.
There are a couple instances where God showed Himself to a few of His most faithful, but it was of His back, walking away from them. It would make sense that He would show them something they could understand. If God is a totally spiritual being, and I believe He is, how could Moses possibly comprehend the "face of God"? The bible is full of examples of how God relates to us in ways we can comprehend.
There are a couple instances where God showed Himself to a few of His most faithful, but it was of His back, walking away from them. It would make sense that He would show them something they could understand. If God is a totally spiritual being, and I believe He is, how could Moses possibly comprehend the "face of God"? The bible is full of examples of how God relates to us in ways we can comprehend.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I have a few questions for you, Melody:Melody said:
(1) What is God's spiritual image?
(2) Do you believe that Jesus Christ, while on earth, was in any way limited by having a corporeal body?
(3) What do you think it means to talk to someone "face to face, as a man talks to a friend"?
God bless,
Kathryn
Aqualung
Tasty
But let's look at this quote again, in Philipians 2 v. 5 & 6
Let's look at what this means. It means that Jesus is in the form of God and equal to God. Remember this, though? Luke 24:39 says
Jesus was raised in the flesh, and he is "in the form of God." So, God must too be in the flesh. Also, even though Jesus was raised in the flesh he is still equal to God. How can this be if
If it were actually better, more powerful, for one to not have a corporeal body, then wouldn't Jesus, who does have a corporeal body, not be equal with God?Melody said:
jewscout
Religious Zionist
but there is...HaShem is without beginning or end, an infinite being beyond our comprehension. If He were to have a physical form that would limit Him, which is something He can not be.Katzpur said:
A physical being is made up of parts, Judaism holds that HaShem is not made up of parts, He is One. (Deut. 6:4)
with this in mind the commentators in Judaism, including the great RamBam, say that any reference to HaShem in the physical is simply a reflection of man's limited concepts and understandings and are simply metaphorical.
when God said let US make man he was talking to Jesus in his prehuman state .he was in heaven with God and Jehovah created his only begotten son first ,then every thing else was created by Gods son
according to some of the oldest and best manuscripts, the Lord Jesus Christ is properly described as "the only-begotten god [Gr., mo·no·ge·nes´ the·os´]
(John 3:16) In speaking of himself as Gods "only-begotten Son" he was identifying himself as Gods "firstborn." Gods direct, unshared creating of things out of nothing began and ended with this "firstborn," "only-begotten Son." In addition to Jesus calling himself "the beginning of the creation by God," the apostle Paul adds a similar designation to him, saying: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." (Colossians 1:15) So, after God created "the firstborn of all creation," all things that were brought into existence afterward were other creations. When creating all those other things, God took into his employ his "only-begotten Son.....so there is the answer as to who God is talking to when he said let US make man
according to some of the oldest and best manuscripts, the Lord Jesus Christ is properly described as "the only-begotten god [Gr., mo·no·ge·nes´ the·os´]
(John 3:16) In speaking of himself as Gods "only-begotten Son" he was identifying himself as Gods "firstborn." Gods direct, unshared creating of things out of nothing began and ended with this "firstborn," "only-begotten Son." In addition to Jesus calling himself "the beginning of the creation by God," the apostle Paul adds a similar designation to him, saying: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." (Colossians 1:15) So, after God created "the firstborn of all creation," all things that were brought into existence afterward were other creations. When creating all those other things, God took into his employ his "only-begotten Son.....so there is the answer as to who God is talking to when he said let US make man
andyjamal
servant
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=123190#poststop
Abdu'l-Baha explains things better than I can.
Abdu'l-Baha explains things better than I can.
blueman
God's Warrior
We can interpret all day long, I am not sure we will know what God meant until we get to heaven. Another question to ponder is who was God speaking to? Angels? I don't think so because God made us greater than the angels, because through His Son, we will be just like Jesus when we enter the kingdom of God. I believe He was speaking to the other two beings of the God-Head (God The Son and God The Holy Spirit) when God The Father posed this question. That's why Jesus said in John 8:58, "Before Abraham was, I AM", meaning He existed from the beginning.michel said:I agree Linus; it would not make sense if it was to be taken literally, because it would imply that God has corporeal form; I am far happier with your interpretaion as 'being able to do good deed, to heal others....'
blueman said:We can interpret all day long, I am not sure we will know what God meant until we get to heaven. Another question to ponder is who was God speaking to? Angels? I don't think so because God made us greater than the angels, because through His Son, we will be just like Jesus when we enter the kingdom of God. I believe He was speaking to the other two beings of the God-Head (God The Son and God The Holy Spirit) when God The Father posed this question. That's why Jesus said in John 8:58, "Before Abraham was, I AM", meaning He existed from the beginning.
Jesus said to them: "Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been...john8;58yes, this goes along with the bible as a whole, that Jesus had been in the heavens even before abrahamcame into existence
Joh 8:58"before Abraham came into existence, I have been"
Gr., πριν ᾿Αβρααµ γενέσθαι εγω ειµί
(prin A·bra·am´ ge·ne´sthai e·go´ ei·mi´)
The following from http://www.carm.org/jw/john8_58.htm is quite interesting.may said:
*
In the mean time, let's turn to page 467 of the 1969 Greek Interlinear used by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:.
The Watchtower's own interlinear translates John 8:58 as "I am" even though in the NWT it renders it as "I have been." In this, they admit that the Greek is indeed, "I am," the present tense. They will not deny this. What they assert is that it should be translated into the English, "I have been." Should it or could it? If it should, then Greek scholars would echo the NWT rendition in the great majority of instances. But they do not.
if we do our homework we find that there are versions from the fourth fith and sixth century that translate this scripture as it should be .Example of these versions areSteve said:The following from http://www.carm.org/jw/john8_58.htm is quite interesting.
*
In the mean time, let's turn to page 467 of the 1969 Greek Interlinear used by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:.
The Watchtower's own interlinear translates John 8:58 as "I am" even though in the NWT it renders it as "I have been." In this, they admit that the Greek is indeed, "I am," the present tense. They will not deny this. What they assert is that it should be translated into the English, "I have been." Should it or could it? If it should, then Greek scholars would echo the NWT rendition in the great majority of instances. But they do not.
SyriacEdition......before Abraham was ,i have been
Curetonian SyriacEdition...Before ever Abraham came to be ,i was
Syriac Pe****taEdition:Before Abraham existed, i was
GeorgianEdition Before Abraham cameto be ,i was
EthiopicEdition:Before Abraham was born ,i was ......so it seems that others recognize that this is the correct way to translate this scripture,why ?because it harmonizes with the rest of the bible
James the Persian
Dreptcredincios Crestin
Sorry, but you think that a translation that alters the plain text of the Greek is better than the original Greek because a few other translations have made similar errors? That's one of the weirdest arguments I have ever come across.may said:
James
James the Persian
Dreptcredincios Crestin
Which is saying exactly what I suggested you were. A more correct way of stating the facts is to say that the NWT is not the only translation to make a similar error. After all, it purports (as do the others) to be a translation of the Greek and yet distorts the plain meaning of the Greek text. That is not translation, but invention.may said:
James
Well said!IacobPersul said:
Furthermore, it's a doctrinally driven invention that severs the connection between John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14.IacobPersul said:
James the Persian
Dreptcredincios Crestin
No, it really doesn't depend on what you think at all. The use of 'ego eimi' in the Greek text is equivalent to say 'I am' (the I being stressed because Greek is a pro-drop language which doesn't need to use the personal pronoun except for emphasis). The purpose of a translation is to render the meaning of a sentence in one language into another language. The Greek used here is present tense and cannot be anything else. If, therefore, a 'translation' uses anything other than the present tense it is either an error or a deliberate deception. If you discount the possibility of the former then you are implicitly accepting the latter, which doesn't really come as a recommendation of the NWT, does it? As Deut accurately pointed out, the erroneous translation of the NWT also completely destroys the OT reference that is intended in the text.may said:that depends on weather i think it is an error,and i think you know the answer to that one
Whether or not this passage is badly translated in the NWT (it certainly is) is not, therefore, a matter of interpretation. The only thing that is is whether you choose to interpret it as an error caused by poor knowledge of Greek or a deliberate and doctrinally motivated deceit. I would plump for the latter, especially given that all the erroneous translations of the NWT that I am aware of share the same characteristic: they lend support to the Arian heresy espoused by the Jehovah's Witnesses whilst opposing doctrines common to all those in mainstream Christianity.
James
Once again, well said.IacobPersul said: