Through the Bible: Genesis

[Felix Florimon]

Angels were the first intelligent beings created by God. They all had a free will and resided in heaven with our Creator.

When I think about God and His creation, Genesis 1&2, John 1:1-4 and Colossians 1:15, and 2:9 come to my mind.

John 1:1-4

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Time is a dimension, it is not a constant; it is relative: “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (2 Peter 3:8 NIV). The beginning of time is when creation began. Time did not exist before such event. This is what the Bible says about Jesus Christ: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” (Colossians 1:15 NIV). Creation was begun with Christ. Thinking in Johns’ terms, the Word that was with the invisible God and was God, it then took the shape of a creature becoming “the firstborn of creation” (using Paul’s terms about Jesus Christ). Through Christ everything was created “without him nothing was made that has been made.” “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” Colossians 2:9 NIV.

In the beginning when the heavens and the earth were created, all the celestial bodies were created. It is my personal opinion that those celestial bodies had a given amount of mass or consistency and had some kind of gravitational force on each other; however, they did not have all the physical properties they had after the fourth day of creation of our planet earth.

In heaven there was not need of any celestial body projecting light toward the place inhabited by the Creator and His angels because light emanated from them. The problem of sin was born when Lucifer began to cherish self-admiration and began to disregard the idea that all created angels should worship the Firstborn of creation in whom “all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.” It is interesting to observe that though the “Firstborn of creation” (also named the “Angel of God” or Archangel Michael) and the “Father” are envisioned by God’s prophets using different physical coordinates and the ability to have an interaction between them through words that could be physically heard (“The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’” Psalms 110:1), such kind of physical interaction cannot be seen with the Holy Spirit. We envision God’s angels congregating and worshiping close to the Father’s throne or going from one place to another with Jesus or worshiping Him but we do not envision such kind of physical separation between God’s angels and the Holy Spirit. This is because the Holy Spirit is really invisible; moreover, God’s children, each one of us, should be temple of the Holy Spirit.

FF

[Felix Florimon]

When sin became a reality, a new reality became obvious in God’s communication with His children. This was the reality of death. Lucifer and his angels never understood this new reality. The Father, the Firstborn of creation discussed the creation of Adam and Eve with the rest of the loyal angels and how the Angel of God would be made “a little lower than the angels” (Hebrews 2:9-11) in order to redeem the human race through His death and resurrection if Adam became disloyal to God’s government.

During the first day of creation on this earth, only God’s presence through his Holy Spirit was hovering around the earth. “Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters” (Genesis 1:2). When God said: “let there be light” the bodily presence of the Firstborn of creation was physically manifested and this physical presence emanated physical light and heat from Him. The Angel of God, the Firstborn of creation making the earth to spin on its axis of rotation, created the 24 hours cycle of night and day; He would be hovering on the same geographic area of earth every 24 hours. Adam would be created with the ability to die of “natural death” if he became disloyal to God’s government only by eating a forbidden fruit of a specific tree (when Lucifer rebelled against God, the concept of death was absent in his mind). On the fourth day of creation, light and heat instead emanating only from the bodily presence of God, would also be able to emanate from the physical celestial bodies so Adam, Eve and their descendents could be kept alive even if God’s physical presence was very far away.

Genesis 1:14-19; And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

During the fourth day, through the infinite power of God, many celestial bodies that already were having some kind of gravitational interaction with earth were ignited. During this time, God created the light reaching this earth from other celestial bodies that were ignited through His power. He also “fine tuned” how much light and heat that would reach the surface of the earth from the sun that would be compatible with biological life here on earth. God also “fined tuned” the orbit of the earth around the sun, the orbit of the moon around the earth and its movement in relation to others celestial bodies in order to “mark seasons, days and years.”

The reason many well educated Seventh Day Adventists feel highly shy to say that God truly created the sun, the moon and the stars during the fourth day of creation is because we know that the earth is just like a grain of sand in the midst of trillions of celestial bodies. They do not wish to further antagonize the rational abilities of atheist and anti-theists who believe to be very irrational to think that an all powerful God would dedicate too much attention to a “little grain of sand” in the universe when we have so many enormous celestial bodies that are much bigger than this earth and with much gravitational force than our planet. However, there is a reason God created vegetation or biological life before He created the sun. Biological life is very limited in the spectrum of physical variables that could exist on this planet earth. God first had to create biological life that would be sustainable with heat and light emanating from His physical presence. This was the third day of creation. During the fourth day of creation God ignited the sun and other celestial bodies while fine-tuning those celestial bodies in such a way that they could help sustaining biological life here on earth. The reason we don’t find that biological life is something sustainable on Mars, Venus, Jupiter and millions of other planets is because God did not personally spend any time in those planets “fine-tuning” those planets and the rest of the universe in order to make biological life something sustainable on those planets.

FF

[jasd]

Quote:

...the original Bible translators because of the Trinity dogma of the Catholic Church, which borrowed the concept of a triune God from paganism?

Quote:

If the Catholic dogma of the Trinity is true,

Quote:

Because Christianity inherited from Catholicism the dogma of the Trinity, which was borrowed from paganism in the fourth century A.D.

Quote:

Most Bible translators believed in the Catholic dogma of the Trinity, which was inherited by Protestants, and it eventually was adopted by Adventists. The original Adventist pioneers were non-Trinitarians, and their view of the Deity was closer to the truth, I believe, than we are today.

I’ve noticed the frequent reprise re dogma/Catholic(ism). Seems almost, as though you have aught against the Biblical doctrine of Elohim/Gd Triune.

Disabuse me should I err, but isn’t the Trinity doctrine one of the foundational tenets of Xtianity?—which identifies and separates Xtians from the sectual or cultic – practitioner of nominalism? That noted, there may be for some - the happy note

of fellowshipping in dogma with good and like-minded people, as those of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and those who call their religious home The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints...

But, then again, Jesus Christ was an angel, yes?—Archangel, but nevertheless, an angel – a created creature... Umm, maybe not..., can spirits be creatures?

Quote:

If the unpardonable sin is in fact an offense against an angel, then what do we do with the dogma of the Trinity?

I’d say, “Establish, and accept it.”

Anyway, re the ‘origins’ of an issue: much of the principles outlined in the Ten Commandments were ‘anticipated’ by pagan civilizations; as were, such as – Seventh-day Sabbath-keeping in Babylon, for instance...

Quote:

If we believe in this Catholic dogma, perhaps we should also adopt from Catholicism many of the other beliefs they borrowed from paganism like Sunday worship; the survival of the soul after death as a living, incorporeal and sentient entity; the purgatory; the priestly confession, and so on.

Hmm, I suppose that having, for the most part, compiled the books you use to set forth your arguments, you might allow that some of what they believe – may have credence, yes? Maybe, all of the above?

Quote:

The above passage is a clear description of the heavenly hierarchy where even Jesus Christ is subject to the authority of God the Father. How can we assign to the Holy Spirit as someone “co-equal” with God the Father? I see in this the influence of Lucifer who wanted to be equal to God before his fall.

Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back [part] of the price of the land?

Acts 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

Is there an Ipso Facto in the above two texts? I’d say...

And, is Lucifer in view? Don’t think so...

Anyway, until the manner in which we intend “co-equal” to be defined is established, we are presently constrained to accept that a Triune Gd is equal except in terminology employed for ease of our understanding. The Holy Ghost is Gd, the Father is Gd, and the Son is Gd. Gd is Elohim.

Quote:

John 17:5 "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” Jesus is making this statement in His prayer and saying that He and the Father were equal before the world was.

>>I fail to see the connection. The text says nothing about Jesus equality with God the Father. This is contradicted in 1 Cor. 15 where a heavenly hierarchy is described with Jesus subjecting himself under the authority of God the Father.<<

1 Cor 15:24 Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

1 Cor 14:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

...

...

1 Cor 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Re “heavenly hierarchy”: reviewing the relevant passage in 1 Corinthians 15, I find a verbal tense utilized that is not applicable to matters as they presently stand; yet, the terminology of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is already established, why?

What may manifest in the anon may not yet have been written. We may, in fact, be in an interTestamental period.

[jasd]

>>I'm remembering why I don't come here much. What starts out as a discussion of Gen. 1 ends with disputes over the nature of the Trinity, whether there is a HS, whether Paul is a real apostle or not, and what exactly is an angel??? Nothing is certain. steve.<<

Not to be disputative, but when fabricating a tapestry of any manufacture – it is best that the threads of both the woof and the warp, whatever their composition, are considered.

I believe that the mention of Elohim in the Genesis Creation Epic (indeed, the first mention of Elohim throughout the entirety of Holy Writ) requires an attempt to understand the number and nature of the implicitly plural Gd - whether it is, in our case, in the nature of a dual, a treble, or other plurality as the term Elohim implies,

is under discussion.

It is certain that soon – the discussion will again turn to the particulars of the Genesis Creation.

[John317]

Quote:

steve9534: I'm remembering why I don't come here much. What starts out as a discussion of Gen. 1 ends with disputes over the nature of the Trinity, whether there is a HS, whether Paul is a real apostle or not, and what exactly is an angel??? Nothing is certain. steve.

I fully understand your feelings about this, and I'm sorry that it happens.

But this occurs because the Adventist Forum allows people the freedom to express their theological views even when those views are unorthodox. The only way to avoid it would be to tell members they can't express certain viewpoints-- that is, in ways that most Christians or SDAs consider wrong.

We also have to understand that Forums like this attract people who have an axe to grind or a favorite agenda. Anti-Trinitarianism is one such agenda, along with others who are anti-EGW, anti-Adventist, anti-Sabbath, anti-Paul, anti-Bible, and anti-Christian.

There are some Adventist forums that immediately ban people who express those ideas, but World Wide Adventist Forum doesn't. As long as they are at liberty to post here, it will be necessary to get used to reading these various and contradictory viewpoints.

The only real question, then, which only we can answer, is how are we going to treat people we disagree with? We have several choices: ignore, take a personal dislike to them, attack, or dialogue with them and be friends. Is our love for Christ enough to cause us to love people we don't agree with, because that's what He does?

[Nic Samojluk]

I'm remembering why I don't come here much. What starts out as a discussion of Gen. 1 ends with disputes over the nature of the Trinity, whether there is a HS, whether Paul is a real apostle or not, and what exactly is an angel??? Nothing is certain. steve.

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Is the universe in fact only approximately six thousand years old? Could it be that perhaps Genesis focus is on the creation of our planet, and the creation of the sun and the stars had taken place much earlier in time?

Yes, and mention in the creation narrative of the stars is like a parenthsis, saying, "by the way, he made the stars also." It's a mistake to think that the passage is saying all the stars were made on that day. As you say, the context shows that the writer's focus is on the creation of man's environment, earth.

I like your answer. It makes a lot of sense to me and it does no violence to the biblical text. Thanks for your comments!

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

Steve said: The Hebrew doesn't require the reading that the stars were made on the fourth day, only that God made the stars, too.

Good observation! I do like your answer.

Quote:

Steve said: Because the sun had not yet been made doesn't mean that there was no light and there could not have been plants.

Yes, God created the light on day one. Now regarding the creation of the sun, the moon and the stars on day four I am not very sure about the chronology we find in Genesis one. Most Adventist scholars do not believe that planet earth was created during the creation week. Scientific evidence for the age of the earth and the age of the entire universe is rather overwhelming.

If the universe is billions—even trillions in my personal view—years old, and if our planet earth is much, much older than merely six or ten thousand years old, then I would not be opposed to the notion that the sun and the moon and our entire planetary system were in existence when God decided to create Adam and Eve.

Someone observed that when Moses wrote this story of creation, the surrounding nations believed and worshipped the sun, the moon, and the stars. Moses purpose in writing this story was to emphasize the fact that what we need to worship is the one who created the sun, the moon, and the stars.

If this interpretation is correct, then perhaps we need to deemphasize the chronology we find in genesis one and rather stress the main idea which prompted Moses to record this story for posterity. Perhaps the creation week we find in Genesis one is a beautiful and artistic rendering of what took place during the week when Adam and Eve came to life.

[steve9534]

Nic;

You're reply implies that we're forever doomed to uncertainty. Jesus said we would know the truth. He didn't say that it would forever be in doubt. I am happy to discuss alomost any topic, but it's hard to have a sane discussion when we keep getting off on these bunny trails where one person or another wants to inject their doubts about some topic into the conversation. We can discuss whether Paul really was an apostle or not, or whether there really is a Holy Spirit. Some recognition that these subjects are not in doubt with the vast majority of the people here (feel free to take a poll if you don't believe it), and detract from the discussion of other topics, would be appreciated. Thanks. steve.

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

John said: No, because the Spirit of God does things that only a person can do. The Spirit of God teaches and guides and also can be lied to.

Yes, the Spirit of God does teach and guide us into the knowledge of the truth. Trinitarians interpret this to mean that there is such a thing as a Third member of the Godhead who is co-equal to god the Father and God the son. A careful analysis of the activity of the Holy Spirit suggests the notion that this interpretation might not be the best one. Notice the encounter of Phillip with the Holy Spirit. It appeared to him as an angel—in a visible manner; but later manifested himself as God’s Spirit. This anecdote is found in Acts 8:

Quote:

26Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Go south to the road—the desert road—that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” 27So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopiand eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, 28and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet. 29The Spirit told Philip, “Go to that chariot and stay near it.”

The way the story is told seems to suggest that Phillip saw a visible manifestation of God’s Spirit—and angel—followed by the invisible guidance of the same angel. If this surprises you, then consider the following examples where the angel of the Lord is later identified as the Lord himself.

Quote:

21When the angel of the LORD did not show himself again to Manoah and his wife, Manoah realized that it was the angel of the LORD. 22“We are doomed to die!” he said to his wife. “We have seen God!” [Judges 13]

Quote:

12When the angel of the LORD appeared to Gideon, he said, “The LORD is with you, mighty warrior.” 13“But sir,” Gideon replied, “if the LORD is with us, why has all this happened to us? Where are all his wonders that our fathers told us about when they said, ‘Did not the LORD bring us up out of Egypt?’ But now the LORD has abandoned us and put us into the hand of Midian.” 14The LORD turned to him and said, “Go in the strength you have and save Israel out of Midian’s hand. Am I not sending you?”

Quote:

17When David saw the angel who was striking down the people, he said to the LORD, “I am the one who has sinned and done wrong. These are but sheep. What have they done? Let your hand fall upon me and my family.”

If you read the entire Bible with the glasses of non-Trinitarians, you will discover that quite often when there is a visible manifestation of God’s presense or power, the “angel of the Lord” expression is used. But when such manifestation is invisible, then the “Spirit of God,” “the Holy Spirit” or a similar phrase is utilized.

Quote:

John said: No one can lie to the wind, nor can the wind teach and guide us.

True, lying to the wind makes no sense. One of the strongest arguments in support of the Trinity dogma is found in Acts 5:

Quote:

3Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.” 5When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened.

Evidently, Ananias had lied to the Holy Spirit of God and he paid with his life for doing so. He had probably committed the unpardonable sin to which Jesus had made a reference to:

Quote:

Because of this I say to you, all sin and evil speaking shall be forgiven to men, but the evil speaking of the Spirit shall not be forgiven to men. [Matthew 12:31]

We normally assume that Jesus was making a reference to the Third member of the Trinity, when in fact what he is doing is paraphrasing a text found in the OT when the unpardonable sin is identified as the rejection of God’s angel’s guidance:

Quote:

20“See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. 21Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him. [Ex. 23]

Quote:

John said: Do you know of any verse in the Bible where ruach is, or should be, translated as "presence"? The word that is translated "presence" is a completely different word in Hebrew. However, the Spirit of God is certainly the very presence of God since the Holy Spirit is in fact God.

There is a text in Psalms 51 where the phrase “Holy Spirit” is equivalent to the word “presence.” Here is the verse, and I am assuming that you are familiar with one of the salient features of Hebrew poetry known as parallelism where the thought found in one line is replaced with a synonymous expression in the next line:

Quote:

11Do not cast me from your presence

or take your Holy Spirit from me.

Quote:

John said: Who or what do you understand by "the presence of God"? And what does it mean to say "the presence of God was moving over the surface of the waters"?

To me the text suggests that the presence of God was invisible to the naked eye because God is Spirit and we do not see his manifestation, but we do detect the effects of his presence.

Quote:

John said: It's doubtful that "the presence of God" communicates the correct idea behind the original language. It isn't found in any of the standard Hebrew-English lexicons, nor is it in any of the English translations.

I am as sure that I did see said connotation in a previous search for the meaning of “ruach” Hebrew term several years ago as I am sure that my name is Nic. Unfortunately, I can’t locate it now, but I hope that one day I will.

Quote:

John said: They were right in many of their beliefs on it. But they were also wrong in some important ways. Some thought Christ was a creature. Others thought the Holy Spirit was a thing or merely a power or influence.

Yes, they were wrong, I believe, regarding the nature of Christ; nevertheless, I lean towards the idea that they were right in their rejection of the Catholic dogma of the Trinity which was borrowed from paganism.

Quote:

John said: The issue of the Trinity was never viewed by the leaders as a test or as an official doctrine of the church.

That seems to me the correct approach to this topic.

Quote:

John said: The doctrine of the Godhead was far down on their priorities. They were right not to agitate about it or to cause division over it.

I do not have a burden to convince anybody to become a non-Trinitarian. I believe that there are other issues which are more relevant than this one.

[Nic Samojluk]

I'm remembering why I don't come here much. What starts out as a discussion of Gen. 1 ends with disputes over the nature of the Trinity, whether there is a HS, whether Paul is a real apostle or not, and what exactly is an angel??? Nothing is certain. steve.

My plan is to continue with the original "Through the Bible" objective, at a much slower pace than I had envisioned. The topic is still: "Through the Bible." I do not mind the many comments which are made. My feeling is that I must pay attention to what other people are saying before proceeding with what I had planned.

As soon as I am done with chapter one, I intend to continue with chapter two. Of course, I don't mind other participants dealing with the issues raised by what we have in chapter one. My only request is that the participants allow me to set the pace. I intend to indicate when we are ready to go to the next chapter.

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

Wayfinder said: I do not apologize for refusing to accept anything written or influenced by Paul.

You have no need to apologize for expressing your views. We need to respect the views of others even if we strongly disagree with them. The problem I see with the idea of rejecting all the writings of Paul is that if it weren’t for Paul, we would not have a Christian church today. We would still be simply a sect of Judaism instead of being a worldwide movement preparing for the return of Jesus Christ in glory.

Quote:

It is my understanding that if, as believed by most, the Bible is the word of God from cover to cover then what Paul says should be consistent with the entire corpus, it is not.

The Bible is the word of God in one sense, but not in an absolute sense. Even Ellen White told us that there are errors in the Bible. She also stated that God did not reveal himself in the Bible as an author. He did inspire men to write, but he did not dictate the words the writers used for said purpose.

Quote:

Wayfinder said: If Paul is telling the truth then Christ will submit to and put Himself in subjection to the Father, this is clearly false. Jesus stated, "I and the Father are One", one cannot be one with someone else and be more or less then the one they are one with (there is a tongue twister).

Do not forget that in Chapter 17 of John Jesus prayed that we may be one with him, with God the Father, and also one with one another. Does this mean that we are equal to Jesus and God the Father? Are we all also members of the Trinity? Jesus was talking about the unity of spirit and purpose.

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

Felix said: The beginning of time is when creation began. Time did not exist before such event.

This is the popular view. I view time from a different perspective. I believe that time has no separate existence from the events of history. My view is that time is simply a mental construct we use to record and understand the sequence of events. The concept of time was the result of the initial couple of events in the universe with the second event preceding the first one.

I include among these events God’s mental activity. The moment God had another thought, the concept of time developed without the need for God to create a separate entity called time. Time has no meaning when divorced from events. In this sense, time existed before God created the universe.

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

John said: No, because the Spirit of God does things that only a person can do. The Spirit of God teaches and guides and also can be lied to.

Yes, the Spirit of God does teach and guide us into the knowledge of the truth. Trinitarians interpret this to mean that there is such a thing as a Third member of the Godhead who is co-equal to god the Father and God the son. A careful analysis of the activity of the Holy Spirit suggests the notion that this interpretation might not be the best one. Notice the encounter of Phillip with the Holy Spirit. It appeared to him as an angel&#151;in a visible manner; but later manifested himself as God&#146;s Spirit. This anecdote is found in Acts 8:

Quote:

26Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, &#147;Go south to the road&#151;the desert road&#151;that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.&#148; 27So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopiand eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, 28and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet. 29The Spirit told Philip, &#147;Go to that chariot and stay near it.&#148;

The way the story is told seems to suggest that Phillip saw a visible manifestation of God&#146;s Spirit&#151;and angel&#151;followed by the invisible guidance of the same angel. If this surprises you, then consider the following examples where the angel of the Lord is later identified as the Lord himself.

Quote:

21When the angel of the LORD did not show himself again to Manoah and his wife, Manoah realized that it was the angel of the LORD. 22&#147;We are doomed to die!&#148; he said to his wife. &#147;We have seen God!&#148; [Judges 13]

Quote:

12When the angel of the LORD appeared to Gideon, he said, &#147;The LORD is with you, mighty warrior.&#148; 13&#147;But sir,&#148; Gideon replied, &#147;if the LORD is with us, why has all this happened to us? Where are all his wonders that our fathers told us about when they said, &#145;Did not the LORD bring us up out of Egypt?&#146; But now the LORD has abandoned us and put us into the hand of Midian.&#148; 14The LORD turned to him and said, &#147;Go in the strength you have and save Israel out of Midian&#146;s hand. Am I not sending you?&#148;

Quote:

17When David saw the angel who was striking down the people, he said to the LORD, &#147;I am the one who has sinned and done wrong. These are but sheep. What have they done? Let your hand fall upon me and my family.&#148;

If you read the entire Bible with the glasses of non-Trinitarians, you will discover that quite often when there is a visible manifestation of God&#146;s presense or power, the &#147;angel of the Lord&#148; expression is used. But when such manifestation is invisible, then the &#147;Spirit of God,&#148; &#147;the Holy Spirit&#148; or a similar phrase is utilized.

Quote:

John said: No one can lie to the wind, nor can the wind teach and guide us.

True, lying to the wind makes no sense. One of the strongest arguments in support of the Trinity dogma is found in Acts 5:

Quote:

3Then Peter said, &#147;Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn&#146;t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn&#146;t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.&#148; 5When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened.

Evidently, Ananias had lied to the Holy Spirit of God and he paid with his life for doing so. He had probably committed the unpardonable sin to which Jesus had made a reference to:

Quote:

Because of this I say to you, all sin and evil speaking shall be forgiven to men, but the evil speaking of the Spirit shall not be forgiven to men. [Matthew 12:31]

We normally assume that Jesus was making a reference to the Third member of the Trinity, when in fact what he is doing is paraphrasing a text found in the OT when the unpardonable sin is identified as the rejection of God&#146;s angel&#146;s guidance:

Quote:

20&#147;See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. 21Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him. [Ex. 23]

Quote:

John said: Do you know of any verse in the Bible where ruach is, or should be, translated as "presence"? The word that is translated "presence" is a completely different word in Hebrew. However, the Spirit of God is certainly the very presence of God since the Holy Spirit is in fact God.

There is a text in Psalms 51 where the phrase &#147;Holy Spirit&#148; is equivalent to the word &#147;presence.&#148; Here is the verse, and I am assuming that you are familiar with one of the salient features of Hebrew poetry known as parallelism where the thought found in one line is replaced with a synonymous expression in the next line:

Quote:

11Do not cast me from your presence

or take your Holy Spirit from me.

Quote:

John said: Who or what do you understand by "the presence of God"? And what does it mean to say "the presence of God was moving over the surface of the waters"?

To me the text suggests that the presence of God was invisible to the naked eye because God is Spirit and we do not see his manifestation, but we do detect the effects of his presence.

Quote:

John said: It's doubtful that "the presence of God" communicates the correct idea behind the original language. It isn't found in any of the standard Hebrew-English lexicons, nor is it in any of the English translations.

I am as sure that I did see said connotation in a previous search for the meaning of &#147;ruach&#148; Hebrew term several years ago as I am sure that my name is Nic. Unfortunately, I can&#146;t locate it now, but I hope that one day I will.

Quote:

John said: They were right in many of their beliefs on it. But they were also wrong in some important ways. Some thought Christ was a creature. Others thought the Holy Spirit was a thing or merely a power or influence.

Yes, they were wrong, I believe, regarding the nature of Christ; nevertheless, I lean towards the idea that they were right in their rejection of the Catholic dogma of the Trinity which was borrowed from paganism.

Quote:

John said: The issue of the Trinity was never viewed by the leaders as a test or as an official doctrine of the church.

That seems to me the correct approach to this topic.

Quote:

John said: The doctrine of the Godhead was far down on their priorities. They were right not to agitate about it or to cause division over it.

I do not have a burden to convince anybody to become a non-Trinitarian. I believe that there are other issues which are more relevant than this one.

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: They were right in many of their beliefs on it. But they were also wrong in some important ways. Some thought Christ was a creature. Others thought the Holy Spirit was a thing or merely a power or influence.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Yes, they were wrong, I believe, regarding the nature of Christ; nevertheless, I lean towards the idea that they were right in their rejection of the Catholic dogma of the Trinity which was borrowed from paganism.

Have you ever compared the SDA view of the Trinity with the Roman Catholic view?

Doubtless you've noticed it isn't the same, so today's SDAs would agree that our pioneers were right to reject the RCC view of the Trinity.

Our church's view of the Trinity is in agreement with both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy. I know that you reject what Ellen White said on the Godhead. I believe Ellen White's view is solidly supported by the Scriptures.

Do you believe Christ had a beginning? If so, how do you understand that beginning came about?

Also, what is your belief with respect to the Holy Spirit? Who or what is the Holy Spirit?

Please look at the following verses and tell me what you understand them to say in relation to the Godhead. Read them in several different accurate translations, and post them in the translation that you believe best reflects the meaning of the original text:

1) Hebrews 1: 2, 3, 6, 8, 10.

3) Col. 1: 16, 17.

4) Col. 2: 9

5) 2 Peter 1: 1

6) Titus 2: 13.

7) John 1: 1

[John317]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk:

I do not have a burden to convince anybody to become a non-Trinitarian. I believe that there are other issues which are more relevant than this one.

I would frankly like to convince you to be in harmony with your church on the doctrine of the Trinity. But I agree with you that there are many other doctrines that are more important, such as salvation, the Investigative Judgment, God's law and the Sabbath, the state of the dead, the Second Coming, and the entire Three Angels Messages.

I do believe there will be many people saved in God's kingdom who are wrong on the nature of the Godhead, i.e., the Trinity.

I expect to see many sincere and honest Jehovah's Witnesses in heaven-- and to their complete surprise, because they don't believe anyone but the 144,000 will be in heaven.

The main thing is that we are willing to accept correction from the Lord, and don't tell Him He's wrong when He sits us down and attempts to teach us the truth. :-)

[steve9534]

The previous post was written this am, then I forgot to click the submit button. I'm happy to have things back on topic and we can discuss one problem at a time. My wife hates it when I do this to her also, but I just have a hard time when the conversation is going four ways at once. I don't know what the time line was for the creation of the earth and stars either, but it's my understanding that the Hebrew in Gen. 1:1 can also be read "when God began to create, the earth was w/o form and void". I'm not a Hebrew scholar and the best I can do here is to look up the possible meanings of the Hebrew words in Strong's concordance. This often seems quite helpful to me, and again, as best I can tell, the above translation would not be incorrect. Anyway, thanks for your patience with my whining, but one thing at a time is about as much as I can handle. steve.

[jasd]

>>How did the vegetation manage to grow...<<

Grow light? Tesla claimed to be able to energize the upper atmospheres from earth’s surface – as to create light. That would have been something like flipping the switch to a fluorescent bulb. I imagine that should Tesla have been able to ‘flip a switch’, as it were – then surely Gd...!

Of course, the above necessitates - together with a formless earth and waters – an atmospheric gas of sort.

>>...before the sun was created on day four?<<

Does Holy Writ actually state that Gd created the sun on the fourth day?

I cannot find Writ stating that as ‘fact’ – either implicitly or explicitly.

Disabuse me.

[jasd]

>>...if it weren’t for Paul, we would not have a Christian church today. We would still be simply a sect of Judaism instead of being a worldwide movement preparing for the return of Jesus Christ in glory.<<

Umm, there was a Xtian church already established in Rome preceding the arrival of St Paul. It came to Rome with St Claudia - via the British Isles.

[wayfinder]

Quote:

Do not forget that in Chapter 17 of John Jesus prayed that we may be one with him, with God the Father, and also one with one another. Does this mean that we are equal to Jesus and God the Father? Are we all also members of the Trinity? Jesus was talking about the unity of spirit and purpose.

We are equal in the family context. The Father, Mother, and firstborn Son are over the rest of the sons and daughters. There is enough information about this to draw an informed conclusion. The account in Matthew 24:42-51, concerns the bondservants of the Son of God, these are the 144,000. These have the name of the Father and the new name of the Son written on their forehead (family identity)see Revelation 3:12 and 14:1. Revelation 3:21 promises a seat on the throne of God to those who overcome as the Son of God overcame. An good analogy for the "trustworthy and sensible/insightful bondservant" is Joseph in Egypt. Pharaoh placed Joseph over all the land of Egypt, even Pharaoh would give Joseph "the last word" on any matter in Egypt.

On a totally different subject: Here is an idea I have been working with. There were two separate creations, in the first creation the animals were mainly reptiles (dinosaurs and flying creatures) and the second creation the animals were mainly mammals and birds. On the sixth day of the creation week, God created mankind (the races) designing them to live in the areas of the earth where they were created. These new created beings needed teachers to teach them how to do things i.e. agriculture, engineering, science and living in community structure. The teachers were the angels/watchers. The watcher in charge of this process had the name "bringer of light/knowledge" also known as Lucifer.

More to follow

[Nic Samojluk]

However, there is a reason God created vegetation or biological life before He created the sun. Biological life is very limited in the spectrum of physical variables that could exist on this planet earth. God first had to create biological life that would be sustainable with heat and light emanating from His physical presence. This was the third day of creation. During the fourth day of creation God ignited the sun and other celestial bodies while fine-tuning those celestial bodies in such a way that they could help sustaining biological life here on earth.

Interesting theory! Of course, I am not aware of any reliable source that would validate this hypothesis. It could have happened that way, but we cannot be sure, unless you have some way of verifying this. I am beginning to suspect that the story we find in Genesis one was created by its author for a purpose which has no direct connection with providing us with an accurate chronological account of the events which took place during the seven days of the creation week. Let’s compare this with the inspired account of the events dealing with the ministry of Jesus.

We have four accounts, and establishing a perfect chronology has so far defied the intelligence of the most gifted Bible scholars. We do not have a perfect chronology of Jesus actions. Why? The story was not meant to provide us with a perfect chorology of the events connected with the life of Jesus. I suspect that the same is true about the story of Creation. This is why we have an apparent discrepancy between the creation story found in Genesis one and the other story in Chapter two, which agnostics use to question the inspiration of the Bible. They forget that the author of Genesis had no intention of providing us with a perfect sequence of events which took place when God created life on planet earth.

When Moses was writing this story, the nations surrounding God’s chosen people were worshipping the sun, the moon, and the stars. Most of them were idolaters. Moses’ main objective might have been to call the readers’ attention away from the things God had created and lead them to worship the one who had created the objects of their idolatrous worship. If this was Moses main objective, then chronology had a rather low role to play in his description of events. This is the reason we have a problem with the stars being created on day four. Of course, most modern scholars do admit that the stars and galaxies are much older than simply six or ten thousand years old, which means that the stars were not created on day four of the Creation week.

[Nic Samojluk]

Disabuse me should I err, but isn’t the Trinity doctrine one of the foundational tenets of Xtianity?—which identifies and separates Xtians from the sectual or cultic – practitioner of nominalism? That noted, there may be for some - the happy note

[Nic Samojluk]

But this occurs because the Adventist Forum allows people the freedom to express their theological views even when those views are unorthodox. The only way to avoid it would be to tell members they can't express certain viewpoints-- that is, in ways that most Christians or SDAs consider wrong.

[Nic Samojluk]

You're reply implies that we're forever doomed to uncertainty.

[Nic Samojluk]

Have you ever compared the SDA view of the Trinity with the Roman Catholic view?