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.
Your "Bob analogy" would suggest Bob looking into a mirror and talking to himself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends
Why? Why wouldn't it suggest Bob talking to something/one else?
I didn't bother quoting my response in between here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends
Why would you assume God is talking to another God when God often says that there is no other God? That seems like a self-contradictory statement. Saying that there is a character who is "firstborn and heir of all his creation" that requires inventing something which is alien to the remainder of the biblical text.
I wasn't trying to lecture you or anybody else into compliance. I was explaining what I have learned from the Jews here over the past dozen or so years. While it's true that it isn't a universally held concept, almost every single source of information that you can find outside of the Jewish community has almost no conversational skills in ancient Hebrew. Even Christian theologians who have studied and even taught at the PhD level fall far short of the Hebrew skills that a typical rabbi has.
If you want to understand Judaism or Jewish Scripture, you have to go to a rabbi to learn. There really isn't another way.
Except I never asked to engage in Judaism. I was explaining some of the interpretations of the term Elohim. There's no need for rank and file on a general discussion forum.
You said my reference to the firstborn and heir of all God's creation was inventing something which is alien to the remainder of the biblical text.
I wasn't placing Abraham in Gen 1:26. I mentioned Abraham to show the heart of the matter.
God did bless Abraham with the be fruitful and multiply blessing though...
But citing Abraham's wish for an heir (because he had been promised one by God) is irrelevant to a claim that God wanted an heir. Adam and Eve were told to be fruitful and multiply. It just seems like there are more differences than similarities.
Well, if anyone is interested concerning whether Elohim can be used both singularly and as a plural, it depends on the context. In Psalm 82:1 the word Elohim/elohim is used twice. The first use is singular because it's referring to Yahweh, and the second use is plural because Yahweh is in the midst of other elohim. You can't be in the midst of one. So Yahweh is sitting in the midst of other elohim (the divine council consisting of angels).
Psalm 82:1 God (Elohim) has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods (elohim) he holds judgment: [ESV]
Psalm 82:1 God (Elohim) takes his stand in the divine council; he holds judgment among the gods (elohim). [The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible)
Psalm 82:1 God (Elohim) stands in the divine assembly; among the divine beings (elohim) He pronounces judgment. [The Jewish Study Bible - Tanakh translation (The Jewish Publication Society)]
Note on Psalm 82:1 in the Jewish Study Bible: Ps. 82: A vision of a heavenly court scene where God condemns those who judge unfairly. The psalm plays on the word ''elohim'' which means ''God'' as well as ''gods'' or divine beings. The notion that other divine beings exist is found elsewhere in the Bible, although they are never equal to God. In later biblical thought these beings serve as God's ministering angels (cf. Ps. 89.5-8)
Psalm 82:1 God (Elohim) stands in the assembly of gods (elohim); and in the midst [of them] will judge gods (elohim). [The Septuagint]
But citing Abraham's wish for an heir (because he had been promised one by God) is irrelevant to a claim that God wanted an heir. Adam and Eve were told to be fruitful and multiply. It just seems like there are more differences than similarities.
The conversation between God and Abram in Genesis Ch. 15 is before Abram had any children. And who would be heir was at the forefront as Abram enquired.
I don't like it when someone says "God wants".
Like I said earlier, I see the firstborn and heir of all God's creation in God's first spoken words, first light. And First Light from the womb of the dawn is the nature of the firstborn and heir of all God's creation.
God also gave the be fruitful and multiply blessing to Noah and his family after the flood. And the firstborn blessing went to Shem. As it is carried along until Shiloh "the one to whom it belongs" is revealed, not by men, but by God.
The conversation between God and Abram in Genesis Ch. 15 is before Abram had any children. And who would be heir was at the forefront as Abram enquired.
So you are referencing something that happened with a human in chapter 15 to shed light on God's actions in chapter 1? That escapes me completely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chief scum
I don't like it when someone says "God wants".
It is a perfectly reasonable use of language, in line with how the bible speaks of God. Ezekiel quotes God's position as not wanting death but repentance (we actually say a prayer 3 times each weekday about God's wanting us to repent). In Samuel 1 the prophet says God doesn't want sacrifices as much as obedience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chief scum
Like I said earlier, I see the firstborn and heir of all God's creation in God's first spoken words, first light. And First Light from the womb of the dawn is the nature of the firstborn and heir of all God's creation.
And I don't see any of that in the text.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chief scum
God also gave the be fruitful and multiply blessing to Noah and his family after the flood. And the firstborn blessing went to Shem. As it is carried along until Shiloh "the one to whom it belongs" is revealed, not by men, but by God.
So then why did you point out that God commanded Abraham to have children? "God did bless Abraham with the be fruitful and multiply blessing though..." post 1177.
There has been a big change in Christianity thats been growing.Bible hacks to prosperity.I was watching a show and the guy was implying that if you were poor it was because of your lack in faith.The gospel of prosperity is taking over were materialism and success is found through Christ.Its what people want to hear in this material world.The old churches still hold the faith but were seeing this more and more especially in super churches on TV.I was at a non denominational church they were out right saying donate a 1000 and God will give you 10000.This is simply not what Jesus preached.
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.
