Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jesus was not created from below...he said it "I am from above...He himself is God. He knows all things...Christ did not need teaching....he was the teacher.
Yes and He said the same thing to those who believed in Him, Adam was a son of God so must have believed in Him.
Those words were spoken to those who did not believe in Him, their father was the devil, NOT God the FATHER. In God is our Father we are from above, plain and simple.
Yes and He said the same thing to those who believed in Him, Adam was a son of God so must have believed in Him.
Those words were spoken to those who did not believe in Him, their father was the devil, NOT God the FATHER. In God is our Father we are from above, plain and simple.
Well if the devil is that created of the earth...this would be man think about this:
Matthew 4:3
And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
Now look at this, who was the tempter?:
Matthew 27:39-42
And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads,
And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.
Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said,
He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
or how about this one:
Matthew 16:23
But he turned and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
So you are saying man is the tempter in the case of Jesus and tempted Him from without, but in our case the tempter is our flesh and comes from within.
What happened to these scriptures
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
If as you say Jesus was tempted from without then He cannot be said to have been in ALL POINTS tempted as we are.
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people
If the devil is the flesh and Jesus was in ALL THINGS made like us and was in ALL POINTS tempted as we are then Jesus had a devil within.
Surprisingly though, there is a passage that speaks to man being made upright, here:
Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made (Heb: ‛āśāh) man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.
It's not really clear (at least to me) if the concept of creation (Hebrew word "bara") would be synonymous here. The term upright meaning "straight" but perhaps with a bent or an inclination towards "inventions", the natural man simply not remaining at rest in God.
As well as a being a former belever in ET, most of my years beleving I believed like many do on this thread that God is the cause behind evil. Both doctrines in my opinion affect the way you think, without knowing it, for both appear feasible to our old way of thinking.
Both doctrines cause you to see God in the wrong light. If you see God in the wrong light it is inevitable no matter how hard Is to accept, you will also see yourself and your neighbor in the wrong Light too.
Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eyes are good, your whole body also is full of light. But when they are bad, your body also is full of darkness.
See to it, then, that the light within you is not darkness Luke 11
Me too brother, I use to believe as they do and taught after the same fashion, lots of repenting to do on my part.
Surprisingly though, there is a passage that speaks to man being made upright, here:
Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made (Heb: ‛āśāh) man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.
It's not really clear (at least to me) if the concept of creation (Hebrew word "bara") would be synonymous here. The term upright meaning "straight" but perhaps with a bent or an inclination towards "inventions", the natural man simply not remaining at rest in God.
Like pneuma said, good find. I beleve the imagination is the place of invention/creation, and invention begins with an image and whether that image be good, bad or indifferent, when it is continually looked up on, conceives and out pictures in our life. To me this is why Solomon said guard your heart( watch what you are looking at), for it is the wellspring of life. Adam and Eve looked upon something and became what they looked upon.
Like pneuma said, good find. I beleve the imagination is the place of invention/creation, and invention begins with an image and whether that image be good, bad or indifferent, when it is continually looked up on, conceives and out pictures in our life. To me this is why Solomon said guard your heart( watch what you are looking at), for it is the wellspring of life. Adam and Eve looked upon something and became what they looked upon.
And they looked upon good and evil, their eyes should have stayed on God the Father which is ONLY good.
And as I said it really does not make any difference because God did not create or make the earth without form.
It helps the readers (self included) follow your arguments. So it does make a difference.
Quote:
You keep read the translation of men brother and are making the same word mean two different things.
If Genesis's translation of tohuw is without form then that same word (tohuw ) in Isaiah has to be the same without form.
Thus Isaiah says God did not create the earth without form.
I really don't see how you cannot see this.
The reason I see it as I do is because that particular Hebrew word is not limited to a singular meaning in each and every occurrence.
Here are examples of the Hebrew word tōhû that means vain, within it's context:
1Sa 12:21 And turn ye not aside: for then should ye go after vain (Heb: tōhû) things, which cannot profit nor deliver; for they are vain (Heb: tōhû).
Isa 45:19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain (Heb: tōhû): I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.
If you'll notice, the above verse follows directly on the heels of Isa 45:18 under previous consideration. The idea of translating it using the word "formless" here would not fit the context in this verse or verse 18.
Here is another example where tōhû means nought:
Isa 49:4 Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought (Heb: tōhû), and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the LORD , and my work with my God.
You would not say one has spent their strength for "formlessness", but rather for nought. The context should determine the appropriate meaning and it's translation into the target language.
The earth was created "formless" (Heb: tōhû), but not "in vain" (Heb: tōhû). Do you see how that works? Exactly how Moses and Isaiah presented it to us.
Quote:
I beg to differ, you are reading the same word in both instances yet follow the translations of men using the same word tohuw to say two different things.
If tohuw means without form in one instants in has to mean without form in the other.
It really doesn't though, as I've just pointed out above. Same Hebrew word, but having two distinct meanings determined by it's surrounding context.
Quote:
And it is the same as with Isa.45:7 so I can see why you are having such a hard time with it. You simply here, like then, prefer the to believe because more people translate a word one way go with the majority. As if the majority is always correct.
My arguments for Isa 45:7 follow the same ideas I've outlined in Isa 45:18. The issue in Isa 45:7 is that the Hebrew word bārā’ with the Hebrew verb Stem-Qal means to "create", not "cut down" as you suggested. As a matter of fact, I'm unable to find any instance in the OT where bārā’ (when having theHebrew Stem-Qal) would be properly translated as "cut down" by the demands of context. You're simply grasping at straws in both Isa 45:7 and 45:18.
Quote:
Yet in the case above another brother, who disagreed with me on the sovereignty issue stood up for the translation I gave because even though he disagreed with me on the sovereignty issue seen the truth of the translation I had given and stood up for that truth. We need more people to do that whether it hurts their belief or not.
I simply do not see why you believe what you do. I think you're wrong, without scriptural support and nothing that you've said so far gives credence to your arguments. Sorry...
Quote:
Funny I gave you the definition and you say it only looks that way.
Again, that particular Hebrew word (tōhû) can take on a variety of meanings, not simply one definition that fits your doctrine. The context defines it's ultimate meaning and translation into our language. Thats why I said your definition may "look" correct if that word is taken out of context. Which you've done with tōhû in Isa 45:18, as well as bārā’ in Isa 45:7.
Quote:
And in the beginning God did create the earth out of nothing, verse 1, but we are talking about verse 2.
Now we're getting somewhere. There is really nothing in the Hebrew text that would separate verse 1 from verse 2. That is simply mans invention for aiding memorization, etc.
Verse 2 is telling us what the earth was by creation. What do you believe transpired between initial creation and being (not becoming) formless? This is really the crux of our discussion, right?
Quote:
Well maybe I have you mixed up with some others, but I thought you believed God created us with sin indwelling. If you do not believe that then my apologies, but if you do believe it then explain how that which God called His Holy temple He fashioned with sin indwelling.
No, I don't believe God created us with sin. I believe God, through His determinate counsel, ordained all the conditions and circumstances for sin to take place and come into existence. I believe God has also ordained the consequences of sin. Evil being the consequences, fruit and outcome of sin. I also believe that God is good and ultimately brings sin and it's evil consequences to naught (1Co 15:26) through His mercy and grace, for His own glory.
Last edited by AlabamaStorm; 06-28-2012 at 09:52 AM..
Reason: clarification
The reason I see it as I do is because that particular Hebrew word is not limited to a singular meaning in each and every occurrence.
Here are examples of the Hebrew word tōhû that means vain, within it's context:
1Sa 12:21 And turn ye not aside: for then should ye go after vain (Heb: tōhû) things, which cannot profit nor deliver; for they are vain (Heb: tōhû).
Isa 45:19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain (Heb: tōhû): I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.
If you'll notice, the above verse follows directly on the heels of Isa 45:18 under previous consideration. The idea of translating it using the word "formless" here would not fit the context in this verse or verse 18.
Here is another example where tōhû means vain:
Isa 49:4 Then I said, I have laboured in vain (Heb: tōhû), I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the LORD , and my work with my God.
You would not say one labors in "formlessness", but rather in vain. The context should determine the appropriate meaning and it's translation into the target language.
The earth was created "formless" (Heb: tōhû), but not "in vain" (Heb: tōhû). Do you see how that works? Exactly how Moses and Isaiah presented it to us.
I realise tohuw can speak of vanity storm, butWhat do those scriptures you provided have to do with creation? Both sets of scriptures, the one in Gen. And the one in Isaiah are speaking of the creation by God. You simply cannot say tohuw in Gods creative act of making the earth means something different in each case.
Quote:
It really doesn't though, as I've just pointed out above. Same Hebrew word, but having two distinct meanings determined by it's surrounding context.
I beg to differ the surrounding scriptures to Isaiah are not talking about God creative act of creating the earth.
Quote:
My arguments for Isa 45:7 follow the same ideas I've outlined in Isa 45:18. The issue in Isa 45:7 is that the Hebrew word bārā’ with the Hebrew verb Stem-Qal means to "create", not "cut down" as you suggested. As a matter of fact, I'm unable to find any instance in the OT where bārā’ (when having theHebrew Stem-Qal) would be properly translated as "cut down" by the demands of context. You're simply grasping at straws in both Isa 45:7 and 45:18.
Is it straws that David said create in me a clean heart? And that creating is by circumcision, which is done by the cutting away of the foreskin.
Is it straw that all of Gods creation is done by His word and His word is a two edged sword used for division?
Every use of the word bara finds its base in division, bara is a word of separation.
And God said let there be light and God separated the light from the darkness.
Was not the first day a creation of God?
His Word always divides brother and it was by His Word that ALL things were made.
Quote:
I simply do not see why you believe what you do. I think you're wrong, without scriptural support and nothing that you've said so far gives credence to your arguments. Sorry...
I have given much scriptural support storm, so that red herring does not fly.
Quote:
Again, that particular Hebrew word (tōhû) can take on a variety of meanings, not simply one definition that fits your doctrine. The context defines it's ultimate meaning and translation into our language. Thats why I said your definition may "look" correct if that word is taken out of context. Which you've done with tōhû in Isa 45:18, as well as bārā’ in Isa 45:7.
The context is the creation of the earth, thus tohuw must have the same meaning.
Quote:
Now we're getting somewhere. There is really nothing in the Hebrew text that would separate verse 1 from verse 2. That is simply mans invention for aiding memorization, etc.
Verse 2 is telling us what the earth was by creation. What do you believe transpired between initial creation and being (not becoming) formless? This is really the crux of our discussion, right?
Disobedience, sin and death
Quote:
No, I don't believe God created us with sin. I believe God, through His determinate counsel, ordained all the conditions and circumstances for sin to take place and come into existence. I believe God has also ordained the consequences of sin. Evil being the consequences, fruit and outcome of sin. I also believe that God is good and ultimately brings sin and it's evil consequences to naught (1Co 15:26) through His mercy and grace, for His own glory.
Well if evil is the fruit and outcome of sin and God does evil, what then can be said of God?
I realise tohuw can speak of vanity storm, butWhat do those scriptures you provided have to do with creation? Both sets of scriptures, the one in Gen. And the one in Isaiah are speaking of the creation by God. You simply cannot say tohuw in Gods creative act of making the earth means something different in each case.
It does when context does. And that's been my emphasis. The principal idea of creation is present in both passages. However the immediate context in Isaiah includes the idea of "forming", "making" and "establishing" the earth to be inhabited by man. And that is the context under consideration and the reason why the Hebrew word tōhû is used differently in Isa 45:18 than it is in Genesis 1:2.
Quote:
Is it straws that David said create in me a clean heart? And that creating is by circumcision, which is done by the cutting away of the foreskin.
In the way you use it, yes. The heart is not simply being "cut", but rather "created" new. A new creation is in view. As that and many other scriptures tell us. I recall this very discussion in the isa 45:7 thread.
Quote:
Is it straw that all of Gods creation is done by His word and His word is a two edged sword used for division?
Every use of the word bara finds its base in division, bara is a word of separation.
And God said let there be light and God separated the light from the darkness.
Was not the first day a creation of God?
The word "separated" is not being translated from the Hebrew word bārā, but rather bāḏal. Two different words with two different and distinct meanings. Again, simply more grasping at air.
Quote:
His Word always divides brother and it was by His Word that ALL things were made.
I have given much scriptural support storm, so that red herring does not fly.
The context is the creation of the earth, thus tohuw must have the same meaning.
You still have not made your case here. And the reason is you've not really grasped the context of what Isa 45:18 is telling us.
Quote:
Disobedience, sin and death
Well if evil is the fruit and outcome of sin and God does evil, what then can be said of God?
God does not "do" evil. But rather God has "ordained" evil to be the proximate consequence of sin. Nevertheless, all of these things fall under God's ultimate divine providence. Throughout scripture we find this revealed time and time again.
Do you have a scripture that supports your idea that "disobedience, sin and death" somehow occurred between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2? The narrative in Genesis does not give any indication for us to believe that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
