Ask a Theist!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-06-2012, 01:00 PM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(15-06-2012 12:46 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(15-06-2012 11:09 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  Wrong.

The grammar adds up to "God" speaking to those gathered in whatever Heavenly location the conversation is taking place in. It's anachronistic to put a Christian Trinity into the context of Genesis. "God" is either addressing a pantheon of gods or speaking to the heavenly hosts (ie, angels). There is no grammatical or contextual connection to the Trinity except from wishful Christians. I believe this has already been addressed elsewhere yet you hang on to this thought in error anyway.

No. That's not what the grammar implies at all.

Angels were not made in God's image; therefore, they are ruled out.

God is used as singular (Elohim) which in no, at all, in the least, suggest a pluralization.

This is also a refute to the Trinity explanation because Elohim is exclusively singular.

Some scholars say that it's in Cohortative Sense, which is, a singular being addressing himself and referencing himself in the plural form. Much like if you look into a mirror and say out loud to yourself, "What are we going to do?"

The Trinity refute to this is that the Trinity is singular and plural at the same time; therefore, Elohim is singular, but He is speaking to the different persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

I could accept either, honestly, but I prefer the Trinity explanation because it makes more sense.

But, what you suggests isn't supported in the language.
Boys, boys - let's get back to something useful and constructive like angels dancing on the head of a pin. Dodgy

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2012, 05:37 PM (This post was last modified: 15-06-2012 06:56 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Ask a Theist!
(15-06-2012 08:08 AM)Vosur Wrote:  This one question has been sitting in my head for days. KC, I want to hear your opinion about this.

"Then 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 birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over everycreeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
- Genesis 1:26

Why does God say "in our image"? Doesn't that imply that there were other beings that worked together with him? Does this verse have the same meaning in the original hebrew version of the Bible? I'm curious.
(15-06-2012 11:01 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(15-06-2012 10:47 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  While you're at it ChosenOne, tell me why that verse ain't interpreted as "We is God".

When "nu" is added to the end of a word it adds a plural pronoun to it. "Our" is used because of the grammar. In Hebrew there is no distinction between "we", "us", or "our", so when nu is translated into English, the proper word is used to coincide with English grammar.

Fair enough, let me phrase it more grammatically. Tell me why it's not interpreted as "I am God and so are you."?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2012, 06:04 PM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(15-06-2012 12:46 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(15-06-2012 11:09 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  Wrong.

The grammar adds up to "God" speaking to those gathered in whatever Heavenly location the conversation is taking place in. It's anachronistic to put a Christian Trinity into the context of Genesis. "God" is either addressing a pantheon of gods or speaking to the heavenly hosts (ie, angels). There is no grammatical or contextual connection to the Trinity except from wishful Christians. I believe this has already been addressed elsewhere yet you hang on to this thought in error anyway.

No. That's not what the grammar implies at all.

Angels were not made in God's image; therefore, they are ruled out.

God is used as singular (Elohim) which in no, at all, in the least, suggest a pluralization.

This is also a refute to the Trinity explanation because Elohim is exclusively singular.

Some scholars say that it's in Cohortative Sense, which is, a singular being addressing himself and referencing himself in the plural form. Much like if you look into a mirror and say out loud to yourself, "What are we going to do?"

The Trinity refute to this is that the Trinity is singular and plural at the same time; therefore, Elohim is singular, but He is speaking to the different persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

I could accept either, honestly, but I prefer the Trinity explanation because it makes more sense.

But, what you suggests isn't supported in the language.
Please show me any Evangelical language scholars who support your view. I know of none unless you want to go back 4 or 5 centuries to Calvin or Matthew Henry, or if you want to use Pentecostal literature.

Here are some who support my view:

Gordon J. Wenham, who is a Trinitarian and authored a widely
respected two-volume commentary on the Book of Genesis, says,

"Christians have traditionally seen [Genesis 1:26] as adumbrating
[foreshadowing] the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this
was not what the plural meant to the original author."


Keil and Delitzsch authored what is considered by many Evangelicals to be the most influential
commentary on the Old Testament. They said,

"The plural “We” was regarded by the fathers and earlier theologians
almost unanimously as indicative of the Trinity; modern commentators, on
the contrary, regard it as having no other
explanation than to regard it as pluralis majestatis
. . . "


Dr Peter Bett says in his commentary,
"[b][b][b]We can compare its use in Isaiah 6.8 when God is surrounded
by seraphim. The writer could only have in mind the spiritual beings,
called in the Old Testament ‘the sons of God’ (Genesis 6.2; Job 1.6;
2.1; 38.7 - see also 1 Kings 22.19 etc; Isaiah 6.2 etc), from whom came
His messengers (‘angels’) that He would send to earth, and one of whom
was Satan himself (Job 1.6).
"
[/b][/b][/b]

Also, these Commentary authors support the same view:
Bruce Waltke, Walter Breuggemann, Nahum Sarna (Jew, not evangelical. Smile), Gerhard von Rad...these are just authors from my seminary and pastor days.

Then these are sources you won't accept, but they are there nonetheless:

The Ryrie Study Bible notes say: "Us . . . Our. Plurals of majesty."

NIV Study Bible notes say: "Us . . . Our . . . Our. God speaks as the Creator-king, announcing His
crowning work to the members of His heavenly court. (see 3:22; 11:7;
Isaiah 6:8; I Kings 22:19-23; Job 15:8; Jeremiah 23:18)"

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
24-06-2012, 10:16 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
Question, and forgive me if it's been already asked........ How can you call the big bang ridiculous when you don't know how your God even came into being?

We're more popular than Jesus - John Lennon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2012, 10:54 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
KC, can your theology provide a foundation for certain human superioirity?

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2012, 02:20 PM
Time to lock this thread.
There is nothing more to learn here, folks.

KC is a Calvinist. Elect, and all that. Minority Christian theology, arbitrary and capricious God, demeaning to humans.

Move along.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2012, 08:32 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(24-06-2012 10:16 AM)Babyeater Wrote:  Question, and forgive me if it's been already asked........ How can you call the big bang ridiculous when you don't know how your God even came into being?

I...

...what?

I never said that.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2012, 08:34 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(15-06-2012 06:04 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(15-06-2012 12:46 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  No. That's not what the grammar implies at all.

Angels were not made in God's image; therefore, they are ruled out.

God is used as singular (Elohim) which in no, at all, in the least, suggest a pluralization.

This is also a refute to the Trinity explanation because Elohim is exclusively singular.

Some scholars say that it's in Cohortative Sense, which is, a singular being addressing himself and referencing himself in the plural form. Much like if you look into a mirror and say out loud to yourself, "What are we going to do?"

The Trinity refute to this is that the Trinity is singular and plural at the same time; therefore, Elohim is singular, but He is speaking to the different persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).

I could accept either, honestly, but I prefer the Trinity explanation because it makes more sense.

But, what you suggests isn't supported in the language.
Please show me any Evangelical language scholars who support your view. I know of none unless you want to go back 4 or 5 centuries to Calvin or Matthew Henry, or if you want to use Pentecostal literature.

Here are some who support my view:

Gordon J. Wenham, who is a Trinitarian and authored a widely
respected two-volume commentary on the Book of Genesis, says,

"Christians have traditionally seen [Genesis 1:26] as adumbrating
[foreshadowing] the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this
was not what the plural meant to the original author."


Keil and Delitzsch authored what is considered by many Evangelicals to be the most influential
commentary on the Old Testament. They said,

"The plural “We” was regarded by the fathers and earlier theologians
almost unanimously as indicative of the Trinity; modern commentators, on
the contrary, regard it as having no other
explanation than to regard it as pluralis majestatis
. . . "


Dr Peter Bett says in his commentary,
"[b][b][b]We can compare its use in Isaiah 6.8 when God is surrounded
by seraphim. The writer could only have in mind the spiritual beings,
called in the Old Testament ‘the sons of God’ (Genesis 6.2; Job 1.6;
2.1; 38.7 - see also 1 Kings 22.19 etc; Isaiah 6.2 etc), from whom came
His messengers (‘angels’) that He would send to earth, and one of whom
was Satan himself (Job 1.6).
"
[/b][/b][/b]

Also, these Commentary authors support the same view:
Bruce Waltke, Walter Breuggemann, Nahum Sarna (Jew, not evangelical. Smile), Gerhard von Rad...these are just authors from my seminary and pastor days.

Then these are sources you won't accept, but they are there nonetheless:

The Ryrie Study Bible notes say: "Us . . . Our. Plurals of majesty."

NIV Study Bible notes say: "Us . . . Our . . . Our. God speaks as the Creator-king, announcing His
crowning work to the members of His heavenly court. (see 3:22; 11:7;
Isaiah 6:8; I Kings 22:19-23; Job 15:8; Jeremiah 23:18)"

Here is a good article.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2012, 08:34 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(24-06-2012 10:54 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  KC, can your theology provide a foundation for certain human superioirity?

In what sense?

Sorry, I'm not sure if I completely understand the question.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2012, 08:35 AM
RE: Ask a Theist!
(24-06-2012 02:20 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is nothing more to learn here, folks.

KC is a Calvinist. Elect, and all that. Minority Christian theology, arbitrary and capricious God, demeaning to humans.

Move along.

Dude... where have you been?

I've missed my Yang.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: