This is written in reply to the following article (http://www.paganlibrary.com/fundies/other_people.php)
First fallacy of the argument on this page
Many claim that the Hebrew noun ‘Elohim’, rendered ‘God’ (Strong’s #430) in the first clause of Genesis 1:26, denotes more than one God Person (typically thought of or explained as “3 in 1” or “2 in 1” as in “one” family). In support they point to the second clause of verse 26, "Let us make man in our image", being plural. It is true that in both English and Hebrew this second clause contains the plural subject ‘us’ and that this governs the plural verb ‘make’- But these are not governed by ‘Elohim’ (God) of the first clause. What is not realized, or otherwise mentioned in this issue is that in the first clause, “And God said”, ‘Elohim’ governs the singular Hebrew verb ‘’amer’ (Strong’s # 559), which is rendered ‘said’ in English. So linguistically there is no basis for claiming that ‘Elohim’ denotes, represents, or contains more than one God Person (entity).
Why does it say, “us” and “our”?
The Cohortative Mood of Genesis 1:26.
From Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar § 75 l, and from Owens’ Analytical Key to the Old Testament, with James D. Martin’s Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar page 76, it may be seen that the Genesis 1:26 verbal phrase, “Let us make” is, in both Hebrew and English, the Cohortative or Voluntative mood. This mood appears not understood by commentators to Genesis 1:26; and readers unfamiliar with the grammatical concept of the Cohortative Mood, are referred to the explanation given at the end of this paper……..In particular the plurality of ‘us’ may not be taken to infer plurality to the speaker God, or even to those God spoke to.
It has now been shown in different ways that linguistically there is no justification for inferring from “And God said, Let us make…”, that the plurality of ‘us’ extends back to God. Rather the Cohortative mood demands that God, as the speaker issuing a command, is singular! This is also attested to by the singular Hebrew verb for ‘said’ (And God said) and the singular pronouns and singular verbs in subsequent verses, which refer back to God of Genesis 1:26
Second fallacy (Elohim or Yahweh)
The Author of the article attempts to separate Elohim and Yahweh. Yahweh is used wherever the Bible stresses God's personal relationship with his people and the ethical aspect of his nature. Elohim, on the other hand, refers to God as the Creator of the whole universe of people and things, and especially of the material world: he was the ruler of nature, the source of all life. This variation of divine names can be seen most dramatically in texts like Psalm 19. In this psalm Elohim is used in the first part, which describes God's work in creation and his relationship to the material world. But in the middle of the psalm the psalmist switches to the topic of the law of the LORD and the relationship the LORD has with those who know him; there the name Yahweh appears.
Accordingly, Genesis 1 correctly used the name Elohim, for God's role as Creator of the whole universe and of all living things and all mortals is what the chapter teaches. The subject narrows immediately in Genesis 2-3, however; there it describes God's very intimate and personal relationship with the first human pair, Adam and Eve. God is depicted as walking and talking with Adam in the Garden of Eden. Therefore Yahweh is appropriately joined to Elohim to indicate that the Elohim of all creation is now the Yahweh who is intimately concerned to maintain a personal relationship with those who will walk and talk with him.
Satan's Lies and his methods
The Author of the article claims that Satan (Lucifer a.k.a the snake in Genesis) did not lie. Lets explore these statements.
Temptation 1 Seed of doubt
Genesis 3:1 The serpent was the shrewdest of all the wild animals the LORD God had made. One day he asked the woman, "Did God really say you must not eat the fruit from any of the trees in the garden?" Satan created a seed of doubt in Eve’s mind. Now she may have asked herself in response to this question: Why is God withholding this beautiful fruit from me? Surely, God would not hold back His blessings from me. Did I misunderstand?
Watch the tempters play on words Genesis 2:16-17
And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
Eve added to God's commandment "but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'" and you must not touch it was added by Eve. Once she saw it was pleasing and then touched the fruit nothing major happened. By her addition to the commandment and the serpents introduction of doubt the spiritual bricks begin to fall apart.
TEMPTATION 2
Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Surely you will not die.
Now that the seed of doubt was planted, Satan contradicted God’s word outright, with ”surely you will not die”. Eve’s fear of death was removed by this lie. When the consequence of disobedience is removed, sin is meaningless.
TEMPTATION 3
Genesis 3:5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.
You shall be like God.
After Satan first questioned the Word of God then openly defied it, he then tempted with a new thought. You will be as God. Doesn’t this speak to our pride. That somehow we are in control of our own life and our destiny without Jesus Christ as our Lord. That God’s plan for our lives is not good enough for us. Our way is better than His way.
Can you see the sequence of these three temptations? Satan first used a suggestion to create doubt, then he defied scripture and then baited the trap with deity of self.
BUT THEY DIDN'T DIE
Gen. 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
Commentators as far back as pre-Christian Judaism have read this as indicating spiritual, not physical, death. But a literalist critic will say: "That's not what the book says. It says they will die. Nothing is said about a spiritual death."
It has been noted that the literal Hebrew says, "Dying you shall die," which does indicate a "progressive" death. However, even if it did not -- as is the case with many cites where "death" and "die" is used in isolation -- nothing needs to be said because the context says all that is needed. Critics would have us believe that the writer of this story, which forms a literary unity, wrote something so blatantly contradictory in such a short space. Common sense alone therefore supports the "spiritual death" interpretation, but there is more, and this is where we come back to the overall pervasiveness of figurative language in Hebrew, combined with an understanding of the Semitic theological mindset.
The account in Genesis goes on to depict Adam and Eve as losing fellowship with God. To the Hebrew mind, loss of fellowship with God is a fate worse than death, for it was the loss of fellowship with the prime source of peace. Thus the word "death" --- representing the most fearsome and irreversible fate in this life --- was chosen to figuratively describe this loss of fellowship with God.
The story continues as the "first" family is kicked from Eden so that they may not eat of the tree of life. This is actually an act of grace and love upon the "first" family. Humankind in their fallen state if they had eaten from the "tree of life" would have been eternally separated and in a state of fallen nature. This act put into motion the plan of redemption and salvation that would later be completed through Yeshua. Once fellowship is "regained" the promise of eternal life is restored.
CAIN AND HIS DESCENDANTS
When a person reads about Nod in Genesis 4, he often pictures a land where a large group of people already were dwelling by the time Cain arrived. Because the Bible gives this land a name (“Nod”), many assume it was called such before Cain went there. Furthermore, many believe that it was in this land that Cain found his wife. Based upon these assumptions, some even claim that God must have specially created other humans besides Adam and Eve, otherwise there would not have been a land of Nod, nor would Cain have been able to find a wife there. Are these assumptions and conclusions correct? What can be said about these matters?
It is very likely that when Moses wrote the name “Nod” (Genesis 4:16), he was using a figure of speech called “prolepsis” (the assignment of something, such as an event or name, to a time that precedes it). People often use prolepsis for the sake of convenience, so that the reader or audience can better understand what is being communicated. more info here http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=696
Yahweh and "Pagans"
the author in the article writes "Jahweh to "learn not the ways of the Pagans..." (Jer 10:2) with detailed descriptions of exactly what it is we do, such as erect standing stones and sacred poles, worship in sacred groves and practice divination and magic. And worship the sun, moon, stars and the "Queen of Heaven." JER 10:2 actually reads "This is what the LORD says: "Do not act like the other nations, who try to read their future in the stars. Do not be afraid of their predictions, even though other nations are terrified by them."
The queen of heaven is mentioned in the following and one other place in the bible.
Jeremiah 7:18 (ESV)
18 The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven. And they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger.
The phrase “the queen of heaven” appears in the Bible twice, both times in the book of Jeremiah. The first incident is in connection with the things the Israelites were doing that provoked the Lord to anger. Entire families were involved in idolatry. The children gathered wood, and the men used it to build altars to worship false gods. The women were engaged in kneading dough and baking cakes of bread for the “Queen of Heaven” (Jeremiah 7:18). This title referred to Ishtar, an Assyrian and Babylonian goddess also called Ashtoreth and Astarte by various other groups. She was thought to be the wife of the false god Baal, also known as Molech.
now moving onto the word "Pagan"
The word 'pagan' is from the latin 'pagus' which means a country district, including country towns and villages. That's as opposed to 'urbus' (like urban) which meant the bigger cities.
We have a few pre-christian uses of paganus, usually used to mean the person was closely tied to the local customs of the place he or she was from. Pre-christian religion often was very locally focused - it was the divine presence in one's home turf that made it one's home, and worship through local customs was the same as loyalty to one's home. So 'pagani' was sometimes used to mean 'devoted to the local ways', in a complementary sense. It often also meant 'hick' in the sense of being local or rural not cosmopolitan.
Christians took up the meaning of "loyal to the old ways", and so did roman vernacular, as christianity became more popular in the empire. By the 3rd or 4th century 'Pagan' was used in the western empire, and 'Hellene' was commonly used in the eastern empire - both used to refer to those who held to the pre-christian religions.
Initially, the reference to pagan supposedly did not have any reference to witchcraft or anything else; this came later.
the author is speaking entirely in the Old Testament setting. TO THE HEBREW YOU WERE GENTILES! simply put you were any people other than the Jewish nation. Pagan later became a term used after Christianity became established! I love how people claim themselves Pagan yet know nothing of the actual meaning. I am a pagan myself having been born outside of the urban settings of the city. My ancestry is pagan having descended from Norse, Celtic and Native American heritage but I lay no claim to mystical abilities or supernatural powers. So by definition I am pagan. More so than many that claim divine right to the title. I however believe in the son of the Living God and find my self redeemed by His sacrifice…but alas that is a whole subject in and of itself.
The author of the article is attempting to state that because we are not of Adams seed we are not in a fallen state and thus have no original sin "Not being born into sin, we have no need of salvation, and no need of a Messiah to redeem our sinful souls."
I believe the evidence shows a lineage originating from a single source (adam & eve) I could go into the science and apologetics of this concept but that would take time and text. More so than I have available to me at this moment.
Original Sin
This one seems pretty simple to me. My kid lies. I never taught them to lie it was a natural occurrence. Sin nature exists in us all. Have you ever lied? Even a little lie? then you are a liar. Have ever stolen anything? No of course not! Well you just admitted you lied so why should I believe you. Ever lusted after something or someone? of course you have BECAUSE IT'S IN OUR NATURE!!!!!! Sin is a part of who we are! Everyone has need of salvation. Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Romans 5:12–14 2 Therefore, just as sthrough one man sin entered the world, and tdeath through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but usin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, vwho is a type of Him who was to come.
(Side not to my feminist friends who scream about Eve getting all the blame please take note of whose sin the Bible refers to….Adam's)
The fact that everybody sins needs some explanation. The best explanation is that we are sinners by nature. Someone might argue that the reason all people sin is because society is sinful, and thus society renders it impossible for anybody to keep themselves entirely pure. But that only pushes the question back one step. How did society get sinful in the first place? If people are born morally good, then how did it come about that they congregated into societies that influence all people to sin?
So we have established several fallacies, misrepresentations and misinterpretations of content concerning the original article. Feel free to begin a discussion concerning my stance. I am out of time so I must end my rebuttal to the above stated article.
Many of the above is borrowed from several sites and sources. Much of the research and content is not my own and I lay no claim to copyrighted material. I will add a resource and reference list when more time is available
No comments:
Post a Comment