Scholar claims Genesis word was mistranslated

[Spy Car]

Where is the proof that the other epics were written before the book of Moses? Or that the events described in Genesis didn't predate the Mesopotamian Myths or other pagan accounts of creation.

The fact is none of us have definitive proof because we were not there.

And I can't change a mind that doesn't want to change. It is well established that I believe in a literal 6 day creation by a one true God. You do not.

I do like to hear why you don't and I hope that you like to hear why I do.:001_smile:

 

Sure. I did notice you by-passed the idea that Moses couldn't have written about his own death and events that occurred subsequent to his death.

 

There is historical evidence to date the tablets containing the Gilgamesh Epic. And there is biblical scholarship dating the writing of the bible stories. The former pre-dates the latter and is no academic dispute about this. If we want to say "neither of us were there so we don't know" then we'd have to throw out every account of human history.

 

I'm not prepared to do that.

 

Bill

[Michelle in MO]

Sure. I did notice you by-passed the idea that Moses couldn't have written about his own death and events that occurred subsequent to his death.

 

There is historical evidence to date the tablets containing the Gilgamesh Epic. And there is biblical scholarship dating the writing of the bible stories. The former pre-dates the latter and is no academic dispute about this. If we want to say "neither of us were there so we don't know" then we'd have to throw out every account of human history.

 

I'm not prepared to do that.

 

Bill

 

you would have to be prepared to cite your sources for this, as well as prove causation (i.e., Text A was written before Text B does not necessarily mean that Text B borrowed from Text A). Most Bible scholars would agree that Moses didn't necessarily record his own death. That doesn't negate the fact that both Jews and Christians refer to these books as the Books of Moses.

 

 

This one helps because is explicitly shows that when God (according to this Creation story) began to from the earth, it already exited. It was not "formed" or shaped, but it was not non-existent. Correct?

 

Water like-wise existed.

 

So this God is shaping, acting as a potter (if you will) but not "creating from nothing."

 

 

No; God is not shaping or acting as a potter; I think you're selecting this particular translation because it suits your thoughts on the matter. God is the one shaping what He has already created. The expository selection quoted from Vine's gives the fuller definition of the word, which I've copied and pasted here for you:

 

bara, "to create, make." This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can "create" in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen 1:1; cf. Gen 2:3; Isa 40:26; 42:5). All other verbs for "creating" allow a much broader range of meaning; they have both divine and human subjects, and are used in contexts where bringing something or someone into existence is not the issue.

 

Young's literal translation selects one of those meanings, not the full definition.

 

Did you read what I posted earlier?

 

 

Bara is frequently found in parallel to these other verbs, such as asah, "to make" Isa 41:20; 43:7; 45:7,12; Amos 4:13, yatsar, "to form" Isa 43:1,7; 45:7; Amos 4:13, and kun, "to establish." A verse that illustrates all of these words together is Isa 45:18: "For thus saith the Lord that created [bara] the heavens; God himself that formed [yatsar] the earth and made [asah] it; he hath established [kun] it, he created [bara] it not in vain, he formed [yatar] it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else." The technical meaning of bara (to "create out of nothing") may not hold in these passages; perhaps the verb was popularized in these instances for the sake of providing a poetic synonym.

 

Objects of the verb include the heavens and earth (Gen 1:1; Isa 40:26; 42:5; 45:18; 65:17); man (Gen 1:27; 5:2; 6:7; Deut 4:32; Ps 89:47; Isa 43:7; 45:12); Israel (Isa 43:1; Mal 2:10); a new thing (Jer 31:22); cloud and smoke (Isa 4:5); north and south (Ps 89:12); salvation and righteousness (Isa 45:8); speech (Isa 57:19); darkness (Isa 45:7); wind (Amos 4:13); and a new heart (Ps 51:10). A careful study of the passages where bara occurs shows that in the few nonpoetic uses (primarily in Genesis), the writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistent material.

 

 

In no other instance does this word bara mean "to separate"; it clearly means "to create" in some form or another. Look up all the rest of the Scriptures listed in the paragraph above, if you will, and tell me if you can substitute the words "He separated" in any of those passages.

 

Is. 43:1--But now, this is what the Lord says--he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel . . .

 

There are a number of verses referenced in the paragraph up above; if you looked them up, I believe you would find that the word "created" is the best translation for them.

 

 

She also said she placed this new understanding of the word bara in the context of the rest of the Bible. Well, if she did that, then I'm not sure how she reached her conclusion because, as Peek has pointed out, the Bible makes it very clear that God created everything seen out of things unseen - or stuff out of nothing.

 

One must not take one lone scripture and try to build a doctrine upon it. All of scripture must be considered and weighed. The Bible is its own best commentary and must be interpreted as a whole - not by picking out isolated verses.

 

 

Very good, Kathleen, and this is exactly the point I was trying to make. Get a Strong's concordance, look up the word bara in every instance in the Old Testament, and tell me why, in this one particular verse, the word bara would be translated as "separated", but in every other instance it would be translated as "created" or "formed".

 

 

I doubt very much that this woman's thesis will gain much peer-reviewed support and approval. She has the weight of 3000+ years of Jewish and Christian scholarship to overturn. Plus, she'd have to overturn the translation of the verb bara in most/all other instances recorded in the Old Testament.

 

Logically, the idea that the universe was in existence before God doesn't make sense--that God just came around "after the fact" and was around to shape the earth. Since the Bible also gives God other attributes such as omnipotent (which means he is all-powerful and thus capable of creating the heavens and the earth) and omnipresent (which means that he was in existence before the creation of the world), this doesn't wash with the whole tenor of Scripture. If God was indeed omnipresent, which I believe He was, then He was in existence before anything was created.

 

This professor's claims have already been discussed by other scholars here and here. The first source is excellent and confirms much of what Kathleen in Va already stated very succinctly. He seems to indeed see the meaning of "separation" in that verse, but gives a very clear explanation on Gen. 1 as a series of separations, and I think he pretty well refutes what this other scholar has to say.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Michelle in MO

[WishboneDawn]

you would have to be prepared to cite your sources for this, as well as prove causation (i.e., Text A was written before Text B does not necessarily mean that Text B borrowed from Text A). Most Bible scholars would agree that Moses didn't necessarily record his own death. That doesn't negate the fact that both Jews and Christians refer to these books as the Books of Moses.

 

Which is neither here nor there in terms of authorship. Most Christians believe three wise men visited Jesus in a stable. Both claims are matters of tradition, not scripture or scholarship.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

Chapter 7: The Language of the Bible, page 88.

 

 

In the original Hebrew language, there are two concepts about how God brings things into existence. One way God operates is by a miraculous process that only God can do. The Hebrew word bara was used to indicate this process.

Bara is never used in reference to something humans can do. It is a term reserved exclusively to describe God's actions in the creation. The Jewish Publication Society says, "The Hebrew Bara is used in the Bible exclusively of divine creativity. It signifies that the product is absolutely novel and unexampled, depends solely upon God for its coming into existence and is beyond the human capacity to reproduce" (Sarna, 1989)

The Jewish Scholar Leiden says, "We have in our holy language no other term for 'the bringing forth from nothing' but bara" (1960)

 

 

I am just adding this as a contribution to the discussion. :001_smile:

 

Eta: This is from the book's appendix and shows the original language of Genesis 1:1

 

re****h (first, former -translated beginning) elohim (God - plural) bara (to prepare, form, create, applied only to God) shamayim (heavens, heaved up things referring to space) erets (earth, land)

 

 

Oh brother! The first word is r-e-s-h-i-t-h. LOl.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Virginia Dawn

[Michelle in MO]

Which is neither here nor there in terms of authorship. Most Christians believe three wise men visited Jesus in a stable. Both claims are matters of tradition, not scripture or scholarship.

Yes, obviously these are matters of tradition and not scholarship---I think we all understand this. This thread is getting off on a tangent; I was simply responding to Bill's statements with what is traditionally understood by both Jews and Christians.

 

The main point of this entire discussion is whether or not Ellen van Wolde's understanding of the Hebrew word bara is correct or not, not who wrote the first five books of the Bible. That issue, as well as the number of the wise men who visited Jesus at His birth, are sidebar issues and not germaine to the conversation. I think this is understood. ;)

[EKS]

I guess this just highlights the point that you don't want to rely too heavily on a translation of *anything*, to say nothing about developing entire belief systems.

[Kathleen in VA]

Um...Moses, of course, didn't actually write the 5 books of Moses. Other-wise he couldn't have described his own death and events that occurred subsequent to his death. Correct?

 

It's pure conjecture that stories written after the time historically established epics were written, pre-dated the original creation myths. Ruth Beechick can make up all sorts of claims, but where's the proof?

 

Bill

 

I see nothing "of course" about your mistaken claim that Moses didn't write the first five books fo the Bible. The fact that there is an account of his death in Deuteromony 34 doesn't dismiss all the rest of the five books being authored by Moses. Joshua could easily have appended this book to include that particular information. Some Bible scholars believe that part could even have been Mosaic prophecy revealed by God to him before his death.

 

Ruth Beechick didn't make anything up. She related what others have theorized about the authorship of the parts of Genesis. Here's a link to an article that relates just such a theory based on the actual language found in Genesis. This, btw, does dispute the notion that Gilgamesh pre-dates the Bible.

 

http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=8441

[Peek a Boo]

Perfect examples. Here God shapes and forms. Like a potter makes and creates things from clay. He stretches things and spreads things, but it doesn't say he made the clay.

 

huh??

They all speak to God creating the heavens:

He created the heavens AND stretched them forth.

He not only makes the clay, but stretches it forth -- the example of making the formless lump of playdough then forming it is pretty accurate.

 

Since the Genesis authors liberally borrowed from other (earlier) Mesopotamian creation myths ....

 

That's a huge assumption that is impossible to confirm at this point. One can almost prove a negative about Gilgamesh: that we haven't found texts earlier than Gilgamesh doesn't mean there were no texts earlier than Gilgamesh. In fact, the extensive writing in Gilgamesh pretty much demands that there ARE earlier texts, either lost forever or undiscovered.

 

But one version makes sense (to me). And from the scholarship I've read makes sense in Hebrew. And conforms (better) to our limited scientific understanding of the origins of the universe.

 

Where the other does not makes sense on the internal logic of the text. The best I can reason it.

The scholarship you've read has apparently been pretty limited.

 

even tho you want to assert that there's "no scholarly debate" about the texts, there is.

 

as Virginia Dawn shared [and this is just the tip of the iceberg]:

 

The Jewish Publication Society says, "The Hebrew Bara is used in the Bible exclusively of divine creativity. It signifies that the product is absolutely novel and unexampled, depends solely upon God for its coming into existence and is beyond the human capacity to reproduce" (Sarna, 1989)

The Jewish Scholar Leiden says, "We have in our holy language no other term for 'the bringing forth from nothing' but bara" (1960)

 

The biggest problem with your reasoning is that it excludes God. The sovereignty and majesty and perfect being of God is a given for the text to be internally logical. You continue to question God's work [below].

 

If that's it, why would an all-powerful being create something that was void, barren, chaotic, or welter and waste?

He wouldn't be a very good creator and thus this interpretation undermines the majesty of the creator-god.

 

why not?

maybe He was enjoying the creative process?

 

so.... you think you know more than God? that you could do a better job?

no snark: your questioning makes it almost crystal clear.

 

we see these types of questions All. The. Time.

even mature Christians still struggle with them.

 

Why would a good God even put a Tree of Knowledge in the garden in the first place?

Why would a good God demand circumcision?

Why would a good God require His Son to sacrifice His Life for a buncha miserable people like us?

Why would a good God allow pain and suffering and children to be molested?

 

As soon as you start questioning how and why God did something, and insist on something other than faith in an Almighty God to prove your point, you essentially set yourself up as of course knowing more than some irrelevant mythical God.

I don't believe in supernatural beings,

 

which is why we will always see you arguing against God. :)

Edited October 10, 2009 by Peek a Boo

[Peek a Boo]

I guess this just highlights the point that you don't want to rely too heavily on a translation of *anything*, to say nothing about developing entire belief systems.

 

exactly.

 

The big crux of religion is faith. :)

[Spy Car]

which is why we will always see you arguing against God. :)

 

Experiment with dialogue terminated.

[Peek a Boo]

Experiment with dialogue terminated.

:rolleyes:

forget the dialogue --it would be nice to see you actually address the points. you're only hurting your own stance by refusing to discuss it.

 

and if you stop arguing against god, then maybe we wouldn't be able to make factual statements like that.

[EthiopianFood]

I don't believe in supernatural beings, so matter existing without a creator-god isn't a stretch for me. As to how all this matter came to be? That is a question far beyond the comprehension of my puny mind.

 

Bill

 

Apparently not, otherwise you would be agnostic, not atheist. :) This isn't the point of the thread, but logically speaking, if you only believe in a physical reality, the laws of the physical world would still have to apply, even at the beginning. Matter cannot come from nothing. If it could at one point, why not now? It's not scientific to believe this.

 

The quote was just a nightmare, so I'm just going to give one answer that will hopefully make sense without seeing the context. Is verse one an introduction, and verse two starts the "action," or is verse one the beginning of the action? I have always interpreted it as the latter. First, God created the heavens and the earth. Verse two describes what this looks like. Nothing more complicated than that. The whole Genesis account is a progression of increasing complexity, why couldn't it start "without form?" Therefore, I don't think you can clearly use this to say that God didn't create the matter itself. As for the implication of Hebrew words, I will leave that for someone else. :) BUT, logically speaking, unless the Hebrew word means original creation, yes, I agree with you Bill, that even if God put together the earth and heavens, and it's original condition was formless, technically he could have smushed it together with space particles that were already floating around. I'm not saying this is logical to me, based on what I said above, but just looking at the text, I think that is fair to say.

[Impish]

huh??

They all speak to God creating the heavens:

He created the heavens AND stretched them forth.

He not only makes the clay, but stretches it forth -- the example of making the formless lump of playdough then forming it is pretty accurate.

 

 

 

That's a huge assumption that is impossible to confirm at this point. One can almost prove a negative about Gilgamesh: that we haven't found texts earlier than Gilgamesh doesn't mean there were no texts earlier than Gilgamesh. In fact, the extensive writing in Gilgamesh pretty much demands that there ARE earlier texts, either lost forever or undiscovered.

 

 

The scholarship you've read has apparently been pretty limited.

 

even tho you want to assert that there's "no scholarly debate" about the texts, there is.

 

as Virginia Dawn shared [and this is just the tip of the iceberg]:

 

The Jewish Publication Society says, "The Hebrew Bara is used in the Bible exclusively of divine creativity. It signifies that the product is absolutely novel and unexampled, depends solely upon God for its coming into existence and is beyond the human capacity to reproduce" (Sarna, 1989)

The Jewish Scholar Leiden says, "We have in our holy language no other term for 'the bringing forth from nothing' but bara" (1960)

 

The biggest problem with your reasoning is that it excludes God. The sovereignty and majesty and perfect being of God is a given for the text to be internally logical. You continue to question God's work [below].

 

 

 

why not?

maybe He was enjoying the creative process?

 

so.... you think you know more than God? that you could do a better job?

no snark: your questioning makes it almost crystal clear.

 

we see these types of questions All. The. Time.

even mature Christians still struggle with them.

 

Why would a good God even put a Tree of Knowledge in the garden in the first place?

Why would a good God demand circumcision?

Why would a good God require His Son to sacrifice His Life for a buncha miserable people like us?

Why would a good God allow pain and suffering and children to be molested?

 

As soon as you start questioning how and why God did something, and insist on something other than faith in an Almighty God to prove your point, you essentially set yourself up as of course knowing more than some irrelevant mythical God.

 

 

which is why we will always see you arguing against God. :)

:iagree:

Experiment with dialogue terminated.

Well, that's pretty snarky. I've read through the entire thread, and don't see where Peek was nasty with you at all. Disagreeing with you, absolutely.

 

I guess I'll be on your ignore list now too.

[Ester Maria]

But Hebrew scholars have long pointed out (and even people reading in English translation should be able to see) that there is a presumption of the existence of matter at the beginning of Genesis. The earth and the heavens were without form, but it's not like there was "nothingness."

At the beginning, you have G-d, and G-d is all there is.

Then all of sudden, you have G-d as one entity, and a universe created by that G-d, as well as everything within that universe, as an essentially different entity (meaning they aren't of the same essence).

How can that be?

 

It can be if, and only if, G-d first "withdraws" Himself (and thus His-Essence too) from certain let's-call-it-space (though the notion of space does not exist yet), thus creation a "void", an empty "space" within which He can later operate without confonding His essence with what He creates. That's the way you can have created things qualitatively different from G-d, and distinct, and yet G-d who put them into existence.

'Asah" is fashion or form or create. Not created (past tense).

Of course that asa represents what is in IE grammars called past tense (even though Hebrew as a language has a different logic of "tenses", which is by the way very interesting, but that's way off-topic for me to get into that now). It means "he created". Note that both words are in " ", it's an important detail.

"Created", as in past participle, would have been asui.

 

Back to topic - even though the verb bara is used in the FIRST verse, when that specific event is REFERRED TO, by G-d Himself, for example in Exodus 20, it says:

Ki sheshet yamim asa Adonai et hashamayim ve ethaarets ("Because in six days G-d created heavens and earth")

 

So really, BOTH are used in the original text, even though bara is not used in the human context (humans don't "barim", they "osim"), but only in divine, while as we can see when G-d Himself speaks of His actions, He uses the "language of humans", thus describing His doing by a verb they understand too? Or He just points to the fact it was an action comparable to human "making", which is never really ex nihilo?

The idea that Genesis represents the beginning of a narrative, but that this narrative does not start at the "beginning" of the existence of the universe is well-established among biblical-scholars.

True.

It reminds me of a Hebrew-school question - why start Torah with a BETH if you're a G-d and you can start it with ALEPH? Why choose a letter whose form is such that "opens" the narrative, but pertains a little "tail" which hints there IS something BEFORE that narrative begins? ;)

 

As a matter of fact, not only the idea you mention is well-established among scholars, but also the idea that Torah is not written chronologically, which is especially trictky for the part we're talking about. According to the Jewish tradition, Torah is written in order in which G-d narrated it, NOT in the absolute chronological order.

 

But both of those are way off-topic for this. Though not unimportant in the big picture.

Well wait. Does this make sense? How could the earth have been "created" AND formless? It's saying the earth was fashioned but it wasn't fashioned. It's a contradiction.

It's not necessarily a contradiction.

What was "created" at first was an "empty space" (in very, very rough terms, since there are notions of space-time at that point) within which later creation, or formation, took place. Whether it was creation or formation depends on the point of view. But G-d first HAD to withdraw a part of His all-pertaining-essence to be able to "create" qualitatively different things from Himself. Creating without "withdrawing" first is what's a contradiction, if you look at it that way.

Ex nihilo supposes there was a nothingness first - and that can't be if G-d is all-there-is still at that point.

Bara is never used in reference to something humans can do. It is a term reserved exclusively to describe God's actions in the creation.

Or maybe, just maybe, if for a second you don't think of Torah as a divine writing, there's a possibility that the book of Genesis is one of the oldest "layers" of the Hebrew language and thus contains, linguistically, some forms later not in use?

 

 

re****h (first, former -translated beginning) elohim (God - plural) bara (to prepare, form, create, applied only to God) shamayim (heavens, heaved up things referring to space) erets (earth, land)

 

Oh brother! The first word is r-e-s-h-i-t-h. LOl.

The first word is BE-r-e-s-h-i-t.

"B" can mean here in OR "WITH". A huge implication too with that one.

 

Also, you misquoted it here - it's really hard to discuss anything seriously when most of the people are discussing of a language they're not familiar with on the first, plain linguistic level:

Bere**** bara Elokim ET hashamayim ve ET haarets.

The "et"s here are also VERY important. They indicate a DIRECT OBJECT.

If it was really about "separating", the whole formulation would have been VERY different, linguistically. It would contain some "bein"s and "le"s and such stuff, not "et"s.

[WishboneDawn]

:rolleyes:

forget the dialogue --it would be nice to see you actually address the points. you're only hurting your own stance by refusing to discuss it.

 

and if you stop arguing against god, then maybe we wouldn't be able to make factual statements like that.

 

Wait a minute here...I see a trap.

 

First you assert something about Bill I've certainly never seen, that he's "always" arguing against God and then, when he senses an attempt to poison the well and bows out you claim he needs to respond or else he's damaged his stance.

 

So you've constructed a scenario where either he leaves and his arguments seem to be weakened or he stays and is distracted from the topic in order to defend himself. Either way the real point of this thread is lost at the expense of Bill's reputation.

[WishboneDawn]

:iagree:

 

Well, that's pretty snarky. I've read through the entire thread, and don't see where Peek was nasty with you at all. Disagreeing with you, absolutely.

 

I guess I'll be on your ignore list now too.

 

Peek made a baseless accusation about Bill. Bill has been involved with a lot of debates here on Christianity, God and the Bible where he's challenged different views and interpretations from an informed, curious and educated perspective.

 

To then have someone call his part in those exchanges simply, "always arguing against God," is belittling to say the least. As if he's got an agenda, as if he's got no place in such discussions, as if his input is suspect because he's not a believer.

 

And as if the claim actually had some basis in truth. I've never seen Bill argue against God.

 

I think Bill was admirably restrained in his reply.

[Donna T.]

There are a few scriptures that say:

 

Jesus was created first and then through him *all* other things were created.

AND

God created *all* things; because of His Will, they existed and were created.

 

 

 

Where does the Bible say that Jesus was created?

[Kathleen in VA]

Where does the Bible say that Jesus was created?

 

It doesn't. That is a Jehovah's Witness teaching.

[Donna T.]

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist: Colossians 1:16,17

 

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

 

Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. Revelation 14:7

 

-----------

 

(/QUOTE]

 

Amen. Thank you. God declares Himself as Creator throughout the whole Bible. From the beginning of Genesis to the New Heavens and New Earth of Revelation, He is Creator God.

[Donna T.]

It doesn't. That is a Jehovah's Witness teaching.

 

Right. Jesus was not created and that is no where found in the Bible.

[mcconnellboys]

Well, at least you're partially correct this time. I believe your quote of my words reflects that I said "Judeo-Christian tradition", not "the book of Genesis". But you are correct in that the book of Genesis simply says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." There is no mention of what was present before that time, since I suppose it would be obvious to most that only God was present before anything was created....

 

Just a suggestion: you might find it simpler to argue viewpoints upon which you are better versed. An athiest arguing Christian tradition might be just a tad lost....

 

Here's one quote about the Big Bang Theory:

 

"Big Bang Theory - The Premise

The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment." {Emphasis mine.}

 

I feel certain you can find several thousand other, similar, descriptions of Big Bang Theory online, as well as in books at your local library.

 

And Bill, in future, please save your condescension for those who might take an interest in your antics. I believe there's an "ignore" feature you can select so that you don't see my posts....

[sunshine]

To the believer's I want to remind you of this verse:

 

2 Timothy 2:25

I fail too. But as believer's you who have not done this with Bill know what to do with the private message thing. And fellow sisters, keep me accountable too.

 

Most importantly as we engage in apologetics we must remember 2 Corinthians 4:3, 1 Corinthians 1:18 every time we respond.

Edited October 11, 2009 by sunshine

[Julieofsardis]

Well Gilgamesh Epic, to name one, far pre-dates the writing of Genesis.

 

 

 

Bill

 

Yes, if you consider Moses to be the author, but if you consider that the texts may have been handed down from the beginning and Moses simply compiled them, then they pre-date any other writing.

[Peek a Boo]

To the believer's I want to remind you of this verse:

 

2 Timothy 2:25

I fail too. But as believer's you who have not done this with Bill know what to do with the private message thing. And fellow sisters, keep me accountable too.

 

Most importantly as we engage in apologetics we must remember 2 Corinthians 4:3, 1 Corinthians 1:18 every time we respond.

 

2 Timothy 2:25, or 2 Tim. 2:23? ;)

Edited October 11, 2009 by Peek a Boo
cuz i wasn't talking about *first* Timothy :)

[Pamela H in Texas]

Donna,

 

Col 1:15 says he was the first creation. John 3:16 says he was God's only begotten. Both are clear that there was a time he didn't exist.

[Peek a Boo]

Donna,

 

Col 1:15 says he was the first creation. John 3:16 says he was God's only begotten. Both are clear that there was a time he didn't exist.

 

???

 

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

 

considering the literary role of the firstborn and how manymanymany familial analogies are used to describe the roles of the father, Son, and HS, I don't think this is at all clear that there was a time when He didn't exist-- it merely relates his position as Son and His dominion. He is also the HEAD, but not necessarily a literal head ;)

However, while I don't necessarily agree with that interpretation [that something clearly existed before Christ], I can respect that it is one based on an interpretation of scripture, so I won't continue debating itunless one wants to explore clarifications and context :)

 

John 3:16 --begotten, yes, but that was His role on earth at the time. That He ade an appearance on earth as a begotten Son of God doesn't mean he never existed before. he just hadn't been begotten yet ;)

and Nobody else has been begotten of God.

[Sputterduck]

???

 

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

 

considering the literary role of the firstborn and how manymanymany familial analogies are used to describe the roles of the father, Son, and HS, I don't think this is at all clear that there was a time when He didn't exist-- it merely relates his position as Son and His dominion. He is also the HEAD, but not necessarily a literal head ;)

However, while I don't necessarily agree with that interpretation [that something clearly existed before Christ], I can respect that it is one based on an interpretation of scripture, so I won't continue debating itunless one wants to explore clarifications and context :)

 

John 3:16 --begotten, yes, but that was His role on earth at the time. That He ade an appearance on earth as a begotten Son of God doesn't mean he never existed before. he just hadn't been begotten yet ;)

and Nobody else has been begotten of God.

 

The JW Bible is different. That's why it says that to them. I used to be a JW and after leaving I didn't trust Bible translations anymore. I studied Hebrew and Greek and now I use the NASB and love it. :001_smile:

 

Some JWs will tell you that they have studied Hebrew and Greek, but they mean that they've read the Watchtower's explanation in their own publications. That is far from taking actual Hebrew and Greek courses from experts, like I did.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Here are a few other translations. One thing I like to do is look up several translations to get a fuller understanding. Another is to look at the original language. It also helps to do it without the bias of other beliefs which may change understanding.

 

He is the first-born Son, superior to all creation. (contempory english version)

 

firstborn of all creation. (new american standard bible)

 

the firstborn of every creature (KJV)

 

15 Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.

He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation,[a]

Footnotes:

1. Colossians 1:15 Or He is the firstborn of all creation. (New Living Translation)

 

the firstborn of all creation (english standard version)

 

first-born of all creation (Young's Literal)

[Sputterduck]

Here are a few other translations. One thing I like to do is look up several translations to get a fuller understanding. Another is to look at the original language. It also helps to do it without the bias of other beliefs which may change understanding.

 

He is the first-born Son, superior to all creation. (contempory english version)

 

firstborn of all creation. (new american standard bible)

 

the firstborn of every creature (KJV)

 

15 Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.

He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation,[a]

Footnotes:

1. Colossians 1:15 Or He is the firstborn of all creation. (New Living Translation)

 

the firstborn of all creation (english standard version)

 

first-born of all creation (Young's Literal)

 

 

You need to add verse 16 in there for context.

 

"for by Him all things were created" etc

 

Clearly Jesus did not create himself. All things created doesn't include Him.

[sunshine]

2 Timothy 2:25, or 2 Tim. 2:23? ;)

 

 

Oh Peek THAT is a fact!!! :lol: I should have quoted 2:23 to begin with!!:D

[Sputterduck]

You need to add verse 16 in there for context.

 

"for by Him all things were created" etc

 

Clearly Jesus did not create himself. All things created doesn't include Him.

 

 

As I recall, JWs added a word here. "for by Him all [other] things were created"...

 

Funny how adding a word can drastically change the meaning. It's unconscionable to add a word to the Bible, but the JWs wouldn't be the first to do so. Perhaps they thought it wasn't so bad since they put brackets around it.

[tdeveson]

THE LANGUAGE OF GOD, by Francis Collins. He was the head of the human genome project and is an Evangelical Christian who does not read Genesis as God Created and *poof*. He proves through science that the Big Bang, evolution and faith are not mutually exclusive.

 

No, he doesn't. I read the book and I think it's hogwash as do the majority of scientists.

 

Religion requires faith. Faith is believing something you know isn't true (otherwise, you wouldn't need faith -- you'd just know it's true based on your senses). People pray over their sick relatives all the time despite overwhelming scientific evidence that nobody gets better through prayer. (Yes, some people get better, but others who were prayed over croak anyway -- it evens out.)

 

Science requires reason -- the exact opposite of faith. Collins can spin his theories any way he likes, but he will never prove through science that the Big Bang, evolution and faith are not mutually exclusive. All he can prove is that somehow he's rationalized his religious beliefs to fit into current scientific thought. Good for him. If this works and satisfies his spiritual quest, then I say, "Wonderful!" But it's lousy science.

 

Note that I'm not arguing against faith. I'm arguing that faith and science will always be at odds because they attempt to look at our world from completely opposite perspective.

 

Just my personal take on this.

Edited October 12, 2009 by tdeveson

[Sputterduck]

Faith is believing something you know isn't true

 

 

What??

 

I have faith in God because he's always been faithful to me. I know He'll always be there for me, because He has a record of doing so.

 

And about your statement about praying for sick relatives... my son's skull fracture was healed. He had a depressed skull fracture, medically documented, and while it was there I would run my finger along the edge as I breastfed him. He needed a ct scan to determine if it was severe enough for surgery. Ones that are moderate and better, they like to leave alone in small children, but his was on the cusp of bad enough to require surgical repair, hence the need for the ct scan. I showed the radiologist where it was after the anesthesiologist put him out. Then they made us go wait in another room. After a while, one of the team came out and asked us to come in again and show them because they couldn't find a thing. I went it and traced my fingers along it, but it was gone. Gone. There was no evidence of there ever being a break there, and they can see old breaks, so it's not just that it went back in place.

 

It was gone.

 

They could not explain it. His doctor was flabbergasted because this was medically documented, and she had seen and felt it all herself a few times.

 

So, no, faith is not believing in something you know is incorrect. What an insult.

[Peek a Boo]

Here are a few other translations. One thing I like to do is look up several translations to get a fuller understanding. Another is to look at the original language. It also helps to do it without the bias of other beliefs which may change understanding.

 

well, yeah, but none of those translations changes the literary aspect of "first born", and everyone has a bias. ;)

 

I mean, a plain reading of scripture shows Jesus advising us to cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes, but context implies it's a hyberbolic statement, not a literal expectation. At least, i haven't met too many one-eyed, one-handed Christians out there, disabled by their own volition.....

 

i would posit that the fuller understanding is likely to be found from more than one verse, and can draw pretty heavily from the same things that point some towards the doctrine of the trinity: Jesus is The Word --The Word of God, spoken during creation, eternally present with God the Father.

[Peek a Boo]

Religion requires faith. Faith is believing something you know isn't true (otherwise, you wouldn't need faith -- you'd just know it's true based on your senses).

agree with Sputterduck --this statement implies a huge lack of understanding of what faith is.

People pray over their sick relatives all the time despite overwhelming scientific evidence that nobody gets better through prayer. (Yes, some people get better, but others who were prayed over croak anyway -- it evens out.)

 

you can't scientifically measure prayer. Falling prey to a study of prayer is as scientific as that which you denounce as impossible to BE scientific. You can't have it both ways ;)

 

Science requires reason -- the exact opposite of faith. Collins can spin his theories any way he likes, but he will never prove through science that the Big Bang, evolution and faith are not mutually exclusive. All he can prove is that somehow he's rationalized his religious beliefs to fit into current scientific thought. Good for him. If this works and satisfies his spiritual quest, then I say, "Wonderful!" But it's lousy science.

 

well, now, what he's rationalized is the correlation between faith and science.

Lousy science is studying the effects of prayer. :D

 

Faith and science will always be at odds because they attempt to look at our world from completely opposite perspective.

 

not really.

Scientists who are Christian look at God as The Ultimate Scientist. It is a joy to discover what God has done in framing our world. I do agree that secular scientists will always be at odds with faith, but scientists who are Christian already understand that REAL science can't be at odds with faith, because God is The Scientist that created EVERYTHING: it is His Laws and Principles we study and use to form our Theories.

 

now there will always be some religious folk [ok, AND secular folk] who will be at odds with 'most anything, but i can't really speak to them. ;)

[tdeveson]

And about your statement about praying for sick relatives... my son's skull fracture was healed.

 

That was one case. As I stated, there is ample data that shows no better medical outcome for patients who are prayed over. Regardless, I'm very happy that your child was healed -- however it happened. I won't argue this point because scientific data means nothing in the face of faith. I can never convince you that praying is not useful.

 

You cannot do real science if you know what the answer must be before you start. Unless a scientist walks into the lab knowing that he must accept whatever the data says, even if it violates his faith, then he's not doing real science. That's just my opinion, but a lot of people far smarter than I share it.

[tdeveson]

you can't scientifically measure prayer.

 

Of course you can. You can set up a group of nuns to pray specifically for someone to be healed during their normal prayer time. You can even manipulate the number of prayers said, their frequency, and the exact words being spoken. It's been done very robustly. The data are always the same. If you pray, your chances of receiving what you ask for are random.

[tdeveson]

 

Falling prey to a study of prayer is as scientific as that which you denounce as impossible to BE scientific. You can't have it both ways

 

Your logic fails. You imply that I cannot study a field because I do not believe its claims to be true.