1. 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!

Featured Genesis 1:26

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by Diaz3618, Feb 21, 2019.

  1. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,793
    Ratings:
    +758
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    The worlds? I don't know if I would put it that way, but otherwise, I agree. Where your translation must read "the worlds" is “the orders of things.” Greek tous ai·o′nas; Latin sae′cu·la; Hebrew ha·ʽoh·la·mim′.

    Again, the word "world." The accurate translation would read heavens. (Bible Gateway) Even the KJV got that right. Other than that anomaly I would agree. Jehovah did this with Jesus as his master worker. (Proverbs 8:22-31)

    No. Jesus is the Word of Jehovah God. His representative, or spokesperson.

    That makes sense, but it begs the question, who is the second born? You say only born, and that's accurate, but the Bible says "firstborn" of creation. Big difference.

    That makes sense. Now your in line. You keep veering out of line, though.

    You have a scripture reference for that? 'Cause, nah.

    The King James Version reads the latter portion of 2 Timothy 1:9 as “before the world began.” Various translations differ: YLT "Before the time of the ages" / NIV "before the beginning of time." / Douay-Rheims "before the times of the world." / ESV "before the ages began." What exactly does this term mean? Most people tend to think of it incorrectly as being before the creation of earth and man, meaning that all since then had been foreknown by God. That isn’t the case at all.

    The Greek term katabole is used, and literally means a casting or laying down. For example, throwing down a seed. At Hebrews 11:11 the term is applied to Sarah's being given the gift to "conceive" at a late age.

    At Luke 11:50-51 Jesus gives us insight on when this term, the founding of the world, began. From the blood of Abel. Abel, of course, was the offspring of Adam and Eve, so this time began when the first human couple conceived and began the race of mankind.

    The word "world" is translated from the Greek kosmos, which has various meanings. 1. Humankind as a whole. 2. The structure of the human circumstances into which one is born and lives and 3. The masses of humankind apart from God's servants.

    So, in a sense we are all living in the same period as Abel, though he towards it’s beginning and we towards it’s conclusion. The founding of the world, in this sense, then, would be the period of time after Adam’s sin but before Adam and Eve conceived. This is the period of time in which God began to allow for the possibility of salvation from the harmful effects of Adam’s sin. Genesis 3:15, the first prophecy of the Bible, is often overlooked as the beginning of all of this because it is often viewed as strictly a pronouncement upon Adam and Eve and the Serpent. When actually it is the first indication that there would be a division of, in a sense of the word, worlds. Those siding with Satan’s seed; his “offspring” so to speak and those of Jehovah’s seed from the woman, his earthly organization of faithful followers who were proved to be rightly disposed or ordained as a class of people from that moment until the conclusion of the world. Put simply, there would be those for Jehovah and those against.

    The same would apply to Ephesians 1:4-5 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13 as with 2 Timothy 1:9

    Ahh, see? When someone uses terms like "incarnation" it doesn't sit well with me. It's an unnecessary religious term that insists upon itself as if to have some merit where there really isn't any. And anyway, how do you get all of that from Hebrews 13:8?

    Did what he was already?! C'mon! No wonder atheist think we theists are nuts. That makes no sense.
     
  2. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,793
    Ratings:
    +758
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    Sure, but rarely will you find such a degree of agreement.
     
  3. lostwanderingsoul

    lostwanderingsoul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    3,613
    Ratings:
    +1,162
    Religion:
    seeking
    Well if you like the Book of John what about John 1:2 "the same was in the beginning with God." The word "with" means that there were two different "beings". But everyone keeps saying that Jesus and God are really one. And if they were together in the beginning then neither came before the other. Both are eternal. Maybe the part about "previously unknown" simply means that many people did not know about God, not that God was completely unknown to anyone.
     
  4. lostwanderingsoul

    lostwanderingsoul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    3,613
    Ratings:
    +1,162
    Religion:
    seeking
    John 1:2 "the same was in the beginning with God". The word "with" means there were two. You can't be with something if there is only you. You say Jehovah created his son. Do you know how you get a son? A son has to be born not created. Jesus was not born as a man until about 2000 years ago. Before that He was not God's son. But his spirit existed from the beginning and was put in human form as Jesus. The human Jesus had a beginning but nothing in the Bible says his spirit had a beginning. In fact it was there "in the beginning".
     
  5. lostwanderingsoul

    lostwanderingsoul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    3,613
    Ratings:
    +1,162
    Religion:
    seeking
    Yes and a few hundred years there was a high degree of agreement that the earth was flat. Seems they were all wrong.
     
  6. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,793
    Ratings:
    +758
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    What you need to concentrate on, that is, where you are making your mistake is with the "beginning." Jesus was the beginning of creation. Then all things were created with him, obviously before he came to Earth much, much, later, as Jesus.

    Again, the beginning of what? Creation. Jehovah created Michael, who, as a master worker, created with Jehovah and Jehovah's Holy Spirit, the heavens, the angels, the universe, the planet Earth and every living creature upon the planet Earth, concluding with man and woman.

    And you are wrong about your estimation of the word son, I'm afraid. Consider Genesis 6:2-4; Job 1:6; Job 2:1-2; Job 38:4-7; Psalms 89:6;
     
  7. lostwanderingsoul

    lostwanderingsoul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    3,613
    Ratings:
    +1,162
    Religion:
    seeking
    Your first sentence says "all things were made WITH him" but Genesis 1:3 says "all things were made BY him". Big difference. Jesus or Michael or the Word or the spokesman ( whatever name you want to use) made all things. But he certainly did not make himself. So if he was there when all things were made and actually made all things himself, then where did he come from? That is the one question for now. A few short sentences or Bible verses is all that is needed. Where did the Word or Jesus or Michael come from it he was the one who made everything? Please give a short answer to this and maybe we can make some progress.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. 74x12

    74x12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2017
    Messages:
    4,027
    Ratings:
    +1,067
    Religion:
    Itiswhatitis
    Are we going to argue about every translation issue in the KJV or stick to the subject? I thought you were already familiar with the meaning of the word translated as "world". BTW, even the NWT translates this word as “world”.

    As for Psalm 33:6, yes it is heaven and all the host of them (in other words everything in the universe!)

    Proverbs 8. This is obviously a literary device used to personify wisdom as a female and it's not meant to be literally about Jesus Christ. In fact wisdom is not an angel either; but an attribute of God. Wisdom comes from God alone. (Job 28:20-28, Romans 16:27, 1 Timothy 1:17, Jude 1:25)
    Which you affirm without a shred of evidence to support you. No wonder the new worldly wisdom translation changes the meaning of John 1:3 to mean something else. Because most translations agree that the Word(Jesus) makes all things that are created. That would mean it's impossible for the Word itself to be created.
    God hasn't had another born Son; except for those born anew into the body of Christ. That's it. So what exactly is your point? If Jesus is firstborn then He still has to be born doesn't He? So show us when Jesus is born other than of the virgin and born again from the dead through the resurrection.
    So you want me to be “in line”? Like Isaiah 28:13 “line upon line”? That would be a bad idea. I don't want to be snared and taken ...
    So, how do we even come to the conclusion the aions and the ages and beginning of time is vaguely "sometime" after Adam sinned but before they conceived? It's so arbitrary.

    Besides which don't ignore how it says before the foundation of the "kosmos".

    And, Kosmos can mean world. Even the NWT translates it as world. World not meaning "planet" btw which is a modern concept. It's actually not a bad translation on the part of the KJV. You're bringing up other verses that use different Greek words such as chronos aionios. Which is the beginning of time.

    So what is the "beginning of time". What is the laying down of the foundation of the ages? It's the 6 days of the creation along with the 7th day and that is clear from scriptures.

    As we see in Hebrews 4:3-4 that God finished His works from the katabolē kosmos. So God finished His works by the 7th day and rested. This is proof the beginning of the ages is before Abel and all that. So Hebrews 4:3-4 should be all the proof you need.

    The “foundation of the world” (KJV speak) is the 6 days of creation.

    for we do enter into the rest -- we who did believe, as He said, `So I sware in My anger, If they shall enter into My rest -- ;' and yet the works were done from the foundation of the world, for He spake in a certain place concerning the seventh [day] thus: `And God did rest in the seventh day from all His works;' (Hebrews 4:3-4 YLT)
    I clearly don’t get all that from Hebrews 13:8 alone. If you know the scriptures you should know what I am referring to without being told every little thing.
    For God all purposes and intentions are accomplished or else He wouldn't rest on the 7th day from all His work. Even Paul claims in Hebrews 4:3-4 that God finished the works from the katabolē kosmos and then rested on the 7th day!

    And what matters it what atheists think of spiritual things? This is between us; we are supposed to understand spiritual matters. Don’t you claim to be a teacher of the Word?

    The only thing that will convince atheists is the work of God within their hearts. Because the world by wisdom has not yet known the true God.

    "For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe." (1 Corinthians 1:21)

    And the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds.
     
  9. 74x12

    74x12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2017
    Messages:
    4,027
    Ratings:
    +1,067
    Religion:
    Itiswhatitis
    Well I think that John made it clear they are One because He didn't just say "with God" but "And the Word was God". So, my point is that John knew he was presenting something that could be easily misunderstood and so he made himself extra clear by saying "the Word was God".

    Please see my post here to see how the Word is one with God.
     
  10. lostwanderingsoul

    lostwanderingsoul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    3,613
    Ratings:
    +1,162
    Religion:
    seeking
    I see it as saying they are one God. But again, that one God can be more than one person like one family can be many people. The word "with" indicates more than one person but the word "was" means one God. There was the Father and the Word ( 2 persons) but they were one God (family). People use the word "God" incorrectly. God is NOT a person. The Father is a person and the Word is a person. They are one God.
     
  11. 74x12

    74x12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2017
    Messages:
    4,027
    Ratings:
    +1,067
    Religion:
    Itiswhatitis
    I understand "with" God to mean the same as if I said love is with God or wisdom or strength is with God. These are part of what God is.
     
  12. lostwanderingsoul

    lostwanderingsoul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    3,613
    Ratings:
    +1,162
    Religion:
    seeking
    So are you saying that you see the Father and the Word as two separate "persons"? Like some people believe in a trinity of three "persons" but making up one God. God is not a person but the Father is a person and the son is a person. They together are God.
     
  13. 74x12

    74x12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2017
    Messages:
    4,027
    Ratings:
    +1,067
    Religion:
    Itiswhatitis
    No, definitely not. I believe the Father and the Son are one and the same. You should see my post about the nature and mission of the Lord Jesus if you want to see more on my views of it.
     
  14. Desert Snake

    Desert Snake ️️️️️️️️️️

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    20,651
    Ratings:
    +1,697
    Religion:
    Jesus
    It doesn't matter because you already said that any aspect of 'God', of course means God.

    So, even if completely separate beings, you're contradicting yourself. That's why if you are saying they are completely different beings, then you need to either specify which being, always, or just say that you have more than one g- d.

    You can't argue both ideas, it doesn't make sense.
     
  15. Desert Snake

    Desert Snake ️️️️️️️️️️

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    20,651
    Ratings:
    +1,697
    Religion:
    Jesus
    It's similar to the JW problem, though less extreme.

    Jw argument goes,
    'The name and word G- d, and 'g- d', can mean anything'


    Then...
    In the next sentence, usually,

    'Jesus isn't G- d'.

    These concepts cannot go together. It doesn't make sense, you are in a "meaningless discussion", in other words, because they just said the name even without specification can mean anything,

    Then use the name G- d, without specification.


    You don't know who they're talking about, by their own definition, and usage.

    In other words, the JW argument, necessitates specification, "who or what", they are talking about.

    • aside from the literal contridiction.
     
    #175 Desert Snake, Mar 15, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2019
  16. Desert Snake

    Desert Snake ️️️️️️️️️️

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    20,651
    Ratings:
    +1,697
    Religion:
    Jesus
    Now, does the English Bible, always follow the 'Lord', or 'God', literal methodology, completely?

    Nope!
     
  17. Desert Snake

    Desert Snake ️️️️️️️️️️

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    20,651
    Ratings:
    +1,697
    Religion:
    Jesus
    What I wrote.

    ^

    My Answer to that.

    I didn't say that there weren't different aspects. You somehow read that into the comments, even though it isn't there.

    Jesus being the 'pater', Shepherd, for example, doesn't mean that Jesus is the same aspsct as JeHoVaH, it means that Jesus is 'our father', since He is 'our God'.
     
  18. Desert Snake

    Desert Snake ️️️️️️️️️️

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Messages:
    20,651
    Ratings:
    +1,697
    Religion:
    Jesus
    There is an inherent aspect nature to Jesus, because of the Manifestation. The aspect is directly implied, because Jesus is the 'Lord with us'.

    It's important to understand and accept that Matthew is calling Jesus, 'Lord with us', not 'a representative of the Lord'.

    Matthew tells us this, directly, because Emmanuel, 'God with us', means the same thing, as Jesus.

    Emmanuel doesn't mean, 'representative of God', in other words.
     
  19. lostwanderingsoul

    lostwanderingsoul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    3,613
    Ratings:
    +1,162
    Religion:
    seeking
    Well I do not see how one can be WITH another unless there are two. It might be religion but it also should make sense.
     
  20. lostwanderingsoul

    lostwanderingsoul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    3,613
    Ratings:
    +1,162
    Religion:
    seeking
    Do you come from a family? Is there more than one person in that family? But it is still one family. There is one God. But there is a father and a son in that God.
     
Loading...