Through the Bible: Genesis

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: When Jesus speaks of "the Spirit" who will come, he uses the neuter noun since that is all that's available in the Greek and Hebrew. But then Jesus breaks the rules of Greek grammar, because instead of using a neuter pronoun, Jesus used a masculine pronoun, which Jesus wouldn't have done if He was talking about a "thing" rather than a person.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: The fact that Jesus attached the masculine form of the pronoun when referring to the Holy Spirit is irrelevant in my view. Assigning gender to objects is very common in certain languages, but they are meaningless in the pure sense of either masculine or feminine gender.

Besides, in literature there is such a thing as personification. The Bible talks about trees clapping their hands and the blood claiming for justice; such expressions do not prove that those inanimate objects are persons.

How do you explain the fact there's only one place in the whole New Testament where Jesus breaks the rules of Greek grammar in order to use a masculine pronoun when the rules called for a neuter pronoun, and this is when he chose to refer to the Holy Spirit as "he" and "him"?

It shows that Jesus made a deliberate choice to do it, which He wouldn't have done unless He did it with a clear purpose in mind. Then Jesus went on to describe the things the Holy Spirit does, things that only a person is capable of doing: teaching, speaking, glorifying, guiding, etc.

What I'm saying is that the rules of the language called for a neuter pronoun but Jesus chose instead to substitute a word that goes against the rules. This can only be explained if Jesus intended to do it for reasons unrelated to grammar. That reason must be theological since the context shows He's talking about a person, not a thing.

Your thoughts?

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

2By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he resteda from all his work. 3And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

The first earthly weekly cycle had ended and God decided to rest from his creative activity. Does this mean that he was tired? If he was not tired, why did he rest? Could it be that he did this for our own benefit?

Notice that when Jesus asked John to baptize him, John objected. Baptism is normally a sign of a new life, a point in time when a sinner decides to manifest in a public way that he has new purposes in life which provide a new direction for his future behavior.

Jesus never committed a single offense against God. Why did he choose to be baptized? Could it be that he wanted to give us an example which we need to follow.

God rested on the Seventh Day, and we need to do likewise.

Quote:

Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh. [Gen. 2:24]

This seems to be an editorial interpolation, since Adam had not yet had any children.

[jasd]

>>I believe that the firmament includes more than simply the earth’s atmosphere. Notice how the firmament is described by one expert:<<

Quote:

Quote:Nic Smojluk

raqiya` (raw-kee'-ah) an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky -- firmament.

>>What is visible is more than the earth’s atmosphere where the birds fly.<<

Writ informs – that the “waters” above delineated the ‘firmament’. Those waters did not extend to include the heavens wherein might be found the sun, moon, and stars. It was limited to (amongst other conditions obtaining) where the fowl flew...

[jasd]

>>Didn’t Peter tell us that the task of prophetic revelation belongs to the HS?<<

Didn't St Peter qualify 2 Peter 1:21 with the words, "in old time"?—that is, aforetime...

I believe it is the purview in this NT age that Jesus Christ is the Spirit of Prophecy, is it not? [/extemporizing]

[Aliensanctuary]

As I see it, the HS is the Creative/Healing/Life-Sustaining Force used by YHVH, aka, the LORD, to create life, repair it, and maintain it. It's a composite of seven, indicated by the seven candlesticks standing before the Throne of YHVH. It is also the mechanism of communication used by those not from this world to communicate with each other, and, with primitive Earthmen via dreams, visions, or ideas. Jesus himself spoke the words that the LORD told him to via telepathic communication, that is, the HS.

We could compare our understanding of this force by trying to explain radio waves to primitive humans who have never seen or heard a radio. When the primitives hear a voice coming from a little box, they may think they are observing a miracle---a human voice coming from a little box instead of from a person they can see and touch.

Likewise, our understanding of the creation of the universe and life are to some, miracles, as are the "miracles" of Jesus, but to those who performed these acts, they're just the end products of a technology beyond human understanding at this time.

Was not the HS present at the Creation of life on Earth? Did not Jesus ask his Father, YHVH, via the HS, to heal people, read their minds, multiply food, and perform acts of trans-substantiation, that is, change one substance into another? The HS is capable of working at a sub-atomic level, enabling it to assemble elements, molecules, and proteins into the life forms we are familiar with.

I believe the LORD designed the DNA codes for all life on Earth, then used the HS to assemble it, then spark it to life. It would be a simple matter for the LORD to transform a raw, lifeless planet into a beautiful world teeming with life, not with magic words, but with technology we, at our absolute best, can only dimly comprehend.

We say our little prayers at mealtime or bedtime, but when we pray in public, we are disobeying the words of Jesus. He told us to pray in secret. This indicates that prayer is meant to be a private communication only between an individual and the LORD. Today, we no longer hear his voice loud and clear in our heads, but someday that will be fixed.

The account of creation in Genesis may very well be true. We just don't have enough information to understand what the Creator is capable of.

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

3And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Many historians and experts have attempted to figure out the reason for the seven-day cycle without success. As far as we know, the Bible is the only book containing an explanation for the origin of the weekly cycle. One source had this to say about this:

Quote:

The only thing we seem to know for certain about the origin of the 7-day week is that we know nothing for certain. http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/week.html#anchor-origin

I gathered the following additional information from the same source:

Quote:

Extra-biblical locations sometimes mentioned as the birthplace of the 7-day week include: Babylon, Persia, and several others. The week was known in Rome before the advent of Christianity.

Quote:

One viable theory correlates the seven day week to the seven (astrological) "planets" known to the ancients: Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, and Saturn.

Quote:

There is no record of the 7-day week cycle ever having been broken.

Actually there have been attempts at breaking the weekly cycle, but such efforts did not succeed in making such alterations permanent. Both the French and the Russians did try to modify it without success. The Russian attempt lasted from 1930 to 1940.

It is significant to note that while many cultures associated the names of the days of the week with astrology and the names of the planets they worshipped, the Jews used a non-planetary system for this: First, second, third and so on. This unique system persists even today in certain languages like the Portuguese and Russian.

For me this moving away from astrology represents an effort to divorce it from idolatry. The nations which surrounded Israel at the time of Moses were worshipping the sun, the moon and the stars. The author of Genesis broke with this tradition by using the “first day,” “second day,” and so on. Thus the seventh day was established as the Sabbath, or day of rest, when the Lord himself ceased of his weekly activities.

One question I have is: Do you think that the Lord does rest on the seventh day in heaven? Is there a weekly cycle where God and his angels reside? Does this cycle resembles our own?

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

John3:17: When Jesus speaks of "the Spirit" who will come, he uses the neuter noun since that is all that's available in the Greek and Hebrew. But then Jesus breaks the rules of Greek grammar, because instead of using a neuter pronoun, Jesus used a masculine pronoun, which Jesus wouldn't have done if He was talking about a "thing" rather than a person.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: The fact that Jesus attached the masculine form of the pronoun when referring to the Holy Spirit is irrelevant in my view. Assigning gender to objects is very common in certain languages, but they are meaningless in the pure sense of either masculine or feminine gender.

Besides, in literature there is such a thing as personification. The Bible talks about trees clapping their hands and the blood claiming for justice; such expressions do not prove that those inanimate objects are persons.

How do you explain the fact there's only one place in the whole New Testament where Jesus breaks the rules of Greek grammar in order to use a masculine pronoun when the rules called for a neuter pronoun, and this is when he chose to refer to the Holy Spirit as "he" and "him"?

It shows that Jesus made a deliberate choice to do it, which He wouldn't have done unless He did it with a clear purpose in mind. Then Jesus went on to describe the things the Holy Spirit does, things that only a person is capable of doing: teaching, speaking, glorifying, guiding, etc.

What I'm saying is that the rules of the language called for a neuter pronoun but Jesus chose instead to substitute a word that goes against the rules. This can only be explained if Jesus intended to do it for reasons unrelated to grammar. That reason must be theological since the context shows He's talking about a person, not a thing.

Your thoughts?

There are many ways a person could explain this. Perhaps Jesus had in mind the Angel Gabriel who both in the book of Daniel and the book of Revelation, as I have noted before, was the instrument God used to reveal the prophetical mysteries to Daniel and John.

Read Rev. Chapter one, verse one where the chain of revelatory experience is identified as God, Jesus, and angel, and John. Tell me why the HS is ignored there? Didn’t Peter tell us that revealing future events is the work of the HS? How do you explain the fact that the same thing happened in the experience of Daniel the prophet? In Chapter 10:21, we find Gabriel explaining that there no one else to help except Michael.

The prophet was sick with worry for the future of his people for three weeks and there was no one to help him until Gabriel came to his assistance. If the HS is omnipresent and if his task is to reveal the future to prophets, then couldn’t he be the one to come to the prophet’s rescue?

We need to weigh the evidence pro and con regarding this issue. I provided a long list of evidences suggesting that our view of the Trinity might be on shaky ground. You have decided to ignore all this and grasp at straws like this one? Which evidence weighs more, the one I have detailed in my previous postings or the ones you have provided?

A few days ago I received from Richard an Email containing some news regarding this issue. There is an Adventist pastor in Australia who, after a long investigation into this issue has concluded that he can no longer believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. Here is a link to his website: http://www.god-head.com/

He communicated to his superiors about this discovery and his credentials as an Adventist minister were removed from him. He told his superior that he could no longer teach the doctrine of the Trinity as true and was let go. He paid a heavy price for his willingness to stick to his conscience, yet he is not bitter against the Adventist Church. He continues to believe in the sacred mission of the church and is praying for the organization he worked for many years.

[Nic Samojluk]

>>I believe that the firmament includes more than simply the earth’s atmosphere. Notice how the firmament is described by one expert:<<

Quote:

Quote:Nic Smojluk

raqiya` (raw-kee'-ah) an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky -- firmament.

>>What is visible is more than the earth’s atmosphere where the birds fly.<<

Writ informs – that the “waters” above delineated the ‘firmament’. Those waters did not extend to include the heavens wherein might be found the sun, moon, and stars. It was limited to (amongst other conditions obtaining) where the fowl flew...

Yes, the waters delineated the lower end of the firmament—not its extremity. The firmament included the earthly atmosphere, the sun, the moon and the stars. Don’t forget this!

[Nic Samojluk]

>>Didn’t Peter tell us that the task of prophetic revelation belongs to the HS?<<

Didn't St Peter qualify 2 Peter 1:21 with the words, "in old time"?—that is, aforetime...

I believe it is the purview in this NT age that Jesus Christ is the Spirit of Prophecy, is it not? [/extemporizing]

You made a good point. The use of the “Spirit of Prophecy” as a reference to Ellen White is a misnomer. Ellen White was God’s instrument to build the Adventist community, but she was not the “spirit of prophecy.” A much better equivalent for the spirit of prophecy would be “the angel of prophecy” since angels are “spirits” and God is also a “spirit.” Jesus, of course qualifies adequately for such a description.

[Nic Samojluk]

As I see it, the HS is the Creative/Healing/Life-Sustaining Force used by YHVH, aka, the LORD, to create life, repair it, and maintain it. It's a composite of seven, indicated by the seven candlesticks standing before the Throne of YHVH. It is also the mechanism of communication used by those not from this world to communicate with each other, and, with primitive Earthmen via dreams, visions, or ideas. Jesus himself spoke the words that the LORD told him to via telepathic communication, that is, the HS.

We could compare our understanding of this force by trying to explain radio waves to primitive humans who have never seen or heard a radio. When the primitives hear a voice coming from a little box, they may think they are observing a miracle---a human voice coming from a little box instead of from a person they can see and touch.

Likewise, our understanding of the creation of the universe and life are to some, miracles, as are the "miracles" of Jesus, but to those who performed these acts, they're just the end products of a technology beyond human understanding at this time.

Was not the HS present at the Creation of life on Earth? Did not Jesus ask his Father, YHVH, via the HS, to heal people, read their minds, multiply food, and perform acts of trans-substantiation, that is, change one substance into another? The HS is capable of working at a sub-atomic level, enabling it to assemble elements, molecules, and proteins into the life forms we are familiar with.

I believe the LORD designed the DNA codes for all life on Earth, then used the HS to assemble it, then spark it to life. It would be a simple matter for the LORD to transform a raw, lifeless planet into a beautiful world teeming with life, not with magic words, but with technology we, at our absolute best, can only dimly comprehend.

We say our little prayers at mealtime or bedtime, but when we pray in public, we are disobeying the words of Jesus. He told us to pray in secret. This indicates that prayer is meant to be a private communication only between an individual and the LORD. Today, we no longer hear his voice loud and clear in our heads, but someday that will be fixed.

The account of creation in Genesis may very well be true. We just don't have enough information to understand what the Creator is capable of.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Writ informs – that the “waters” above delineated the ‘firmament’. Those waters did not extend to include the heavens wherein might be found the sun, moon, and stars. It was limited to (amongst other conditions obtaining) where the fowl flew... [ed.jasd]

>>Yes, the waters delineated the lower end of the firmament—not its extremity. The firmament included the earthly atmosphere, the sun, the moon and the stars. Don’t forget this!<<

Say what!? Please read carefully – my above quote and the following:

Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.

It is purported in the Xtian community that Moses wrote what was related to him by Gd. Please, again, note:

“the waters which [were] above the firmament”

[jasd]

>>Didn’t Peter tell us that the task of prophetic revelation belongs to the HS?<<

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Didn't St Peter qualify 2 Peter 1:21 with the words, "in old time"?—that is, aforetime...

I believe it is the purview in this NT age that Jesus Christ is the Spirit of Prophecy, is it not? [/extemporizing]

>>You made a good point. The use of the “Spirit of Prophecy” as a reference to Ellen White is a misnomer. Ellen White was God’s instrument to build the Adventist community, but she was not the “spirit of prophecy.” A much better equivalent for the spirit of prophecy would be “the angel of prophecy” since angels are “spirits” and God is also a “spirit.” Jesus, of course qualifies adequately for such a description.<<

My point was: one cannot continue resorting to 2 Peter 1:21 as a debating point re the HS vis-à-vis prophetic writings, as has been done on this thread - unless, the distinction is made. Insistence upon doing so

is, well, misleading.

[Nic Samojluk]

Say what!? Please read carefully – my above quote and the following:

Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.

[Nic Samojluk]

Didn't St Peter qualify 2 Peter 1:21 with the words, "in old time"?—that is, aforetime...

I believe it is the purview in this NT age that Jesus Christ is the Spirit of Prophecy, is it not?

[Nic Samojluk]

Bible critics have argued that there exists a serious chronological problem in the alleged “two stories” of creation.

The order of creation, they say, we find in Chapter One does not square up with what we find in chapter Two. In the first chapter the Lord creates in the following order: animals, Adam, and Eve; while in the second chapter the order is reversed to: Adam, Eve, and the animals.

I do not accept this argument for the following reason: In verse 19 the text states that “LORD God had formed.” The phrase “had formed” indicates an action that had taken before. I conclude that this refers to the fact that by the time Adam came to the scene, the animals had already been created. Heres is the text:

Quote:

15The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

16And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;

17but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”

18The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

What do you think?

[Nic Samojluk]

Another feature we find in the alleged two stories of creation is the use of the terms “elohim” and “elohim Yahweh.” In the first chapter and up to chapter 2 verse 4, the term for God used by the author of Genesis is e•lo•him, which has been consistently translated as God.

Nevertheless, starting with verse five and on the references to the Creator were altered to “elohim Yahweh” which Bible translators rendered as “the Lord God.” Experts have wondered why would the author of Genesis make such a noticeable switch from “elohim” to “elohim Yahweh.” This phenomenon was used by Bible critics to suggest that Genesis was not written by a single author, but rather by several writers.

Quote:

4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens—

5and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earthb and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth

6but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground—

7the LORD God formed the mane from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

8Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

9And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Here is how one expert tried to solve this apparent difficulty when dealing with the alleged two stories of creation found in Genesis:

Quote:

Why does Genesis 1 refer to God exclusively by the Hebrew title Elohim, "God," while the second chapter of Genesis, beginning in the second half of Genesis 2:4, speaks exclusively of Yahweh Elohim, that is, "the LORD God"? So striking is this divergence of the divine names that it has been common in critical circles of biblical scholarship to conclude that the writer, or, as those in the critical school prefer, the redactor (a sort of copyeditor) used basically two different sources for the two creation accounts found in the two chapters.

Thus the name Yahweh is used when the Bible wishes to present the personal character of God and his direct relationship with those human beings who have a special association with him. Contrariwise, Elohim occurs when the Scriptures are referring to God as a transcendent Being who is the author of the material world, yet One who stands above it. Elohim conveys the more philosophically oriented concept that connects deity with the existence of the world and humanity. But for those who seek the more direct, personal and ethically oriented view of God, the term Yahweh was more appropriate.

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.

http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/yahweh.html

What do you think?

[John317]

Quote:

jasd:

Didn't St Peter qualify 2 Peter 1:21 with the words, "in old time"? that is, aforetime...

I believe it is the purview in this NT age that Jesus Christ is the Spirit of Prophecy, is it not?

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: It all depends on the biblical version you have a preference for. Notice that not all translators followed the lead of the King James author:

The Greek word translated "in old time" is puros, an indefinite adverb meaning "at any time."

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of prophecy because it's the Holy Spirit which witnesses to Christ by inspiring the prophets to testify of Him.

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: When Jesus speaks of "the Spirit" who will come, he uses the neuter noun since that is all that's available in the Greek and Hebrew. But then Jesus breaks the rules of Greek grammar, because instead of using a neuter pronoun, Jesus used a masculine pronoun, which Jesus wouldn't have done if He was talking about a "thing" rather than a person.

How do you explain the fact there's only one place in the whole New Testament where Jesus breaks the rules of Greek grammar in order to use a masculine pronoun when the rules called for a neuter pronoun, and this is when he chose to refer to the Holy Spirit as "he" and "him"?

It shows that Jesus made a deliberate choice to do it, which He wouldn't have done unless He did it with a clear purpose in mind. Then Jesus went on to describe the things the Holy Spirit does, things that only a person is capable of doing: teaching, speaking, glorifying, guiding, etc.

What I'm saying is that the rules of the language called for a neuter pronoun but Jesus chose instead to substitute a word that goes against the rules. This can only be explained if Jesus intended to do it for reasons unrelated to grammar. That reason must be theological since the context shows He's talking about a person, not a thing.

Your thoughts?

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: There are many ways a person could explain this. Perhaps Jesus had in mind the Angel Gabriel who both in the book of Daniel and the book of Revelation, as I have noted before, was the instrument God used to reveal the prophetical mysteries to Daniel and John.

That would mean the angel Gabriel is the one Christ is talking about in John 14 and 16, where Christ speaks "the Spirit of truth," "another comforter who will abide with you forever," "convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment," "teach all things," "guide you into all truth," and "be in you."

Do you really think these are all references to the angel Gabriel?

If not, to whom are they are referring?

You said there are many ways a person could explain this, but you have only given one explanation, which is that it's Gabriel.

Do you have any other explanations?

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: A few days ago I received from Richard an Email containing some news regarding this issue. There is an Adventist pastor in Australia who, after a long investigation into this issue has concluded that he can no longer believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. Here is a link to his website: http://www.god-head.com/

He communicated to his superiors about this discovery and his credentials as an Adventist minister were removed from him. He told his superior that he could no longer teach the doctrine of the Trinity as true and was let go. He paid a heavy price for his willingness to stick to his conscience, yet he is not bitter against the Adventist Church. He continues to believe in the sacred mission of the church and is praying for the organization he worked for many years.

Yes, Richard sent me the same link over a month ago, and I've been studying that former minister's beliefs on his website.

But of course the mere fact that this former SDA minister made this decision to reject the Trinity is no valid evidence that he was correct in his decision. The most important question for me is what his biblical reasons were for changing.

Whether he was right or wrong can only be determined by each of us as we study all the evidence. From my viewpoint, that means not only examining the Bible but the writings of Ellen White. The Bible itself is clear on the topic, but before an SDA can reject the doctrine of the Trinity as our church understands it, he must reject many Ellen White statements, such as, for instance, her statements that the Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Godhead and that the Holy Spirit is a person as much as God the Father is a person. See Ev. 615-617.

[John317]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Bible critics have argued that there exists a serious chronological problem in the alleged two stories of creation.

The order of creation, they say, we find in Chapter One does not square up with what we find in chapter Two. In the first chapter the Lord creates in the following order: animals, Adam, and Eve; while in the second chapter the order is reversed to: Adam, Eve, and the animals.

I do not accept this argument for the following reason: In verse 19 the text states that LORD God had formed. The phrase had formed indicates an action that had taken before.

Don't you mean verse 8 of chapter 2?

If so, the word is qal perfect verb: "... there He placed the human whom He had fashioned." That is consistently the way all the best translations render it.

But in verse 8, this would seem to indicate that God first formed the man and then planted the garden, wouldn't it?

I know that's not the order in which those things happened, but Genesis 2 is not giving the order in which the events occurred. That's not its purpose. The order is given to us in chapter 1. Chapter 2 is like a close-up shot of Gen. 1: 26, 27, the creation of Adam and Eve. It shows the great care with which God made them, and gives us many more details that are not included in the first chapter. Therefore, the writer is not concerned with the order in which the whole of creation happened. The first chapter tells us what happened--- then the second returns to the creation of man and tells us why and how this particular part of creation happened. It concentrates on mankind as the whole reason for God's creation of the earth.

[Nic Samojluk]

Do you really think these are all references to the angel Gabriel?

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Bible critics have argued that there exists a serious chronological problem in the alleged two stories of creation.

The order of creation, they say, we find in Chapter One does not square up with what we find in chapter Two. In the first chapter the Lord creates in the following order: animals, Adam, and Eve; while in the second chapter the order is reversed to: Adam, Eve, and the animals.

I do not accept this argument for the following reason: In verse 19 the text states that LORD God had formed. The phrase had formed indicates an action that had taken before.

Don't you mean verse 8 of chapter 2?

If so, the word is qal perfect verb: "... there He placed the human whom He had fashioned." That is consistently the way all the best translations render it.

But in verse 8, this would seem to indicate that God first formed the man and then planted the garden, wouldn't it?

I know that's not the order in which those things happened, but Genesis 2 is not giving the order in which the events occurred. That's not its purpose. The order is given to us in chapter 1. Chapter 2 is like a close-up shot of Gen. 1: 26, 27, the creation of Adam and Eve. It shows the great care with which God made them, and gives us many more details that are not included in the first chapter. Therefore, the writer is not concerned with the order in which the whole of creation happened. The first chapter tells us what happened--- then the second returns to the creation of man and tells us why and how this particular part of creation happened. It concentrates on mankind as the whole reason for God's creation of the earth.

I meant verse 19, but I appreciate the additional information you provided.

[Nic Samojluk]

Verse 17 of chapter two has been translated in several ways:

Quote:

King James Bible

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Quote:

Bible in Basic English

But of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you may not take; for on the day when you take of it, death will certainly come to you.

The above renderings of the text seem to suggest that Adam and Eve were expected to die on the same day they ate of the forbidden fruit. Of course they did not die, and some scholars argue that they did not die simply because God decided to take the penalty of their transgression upon himself.

Nevertheless, other translations suggest that the timing of Adam and Eve death was not pre-determined. They were doomed to die, and they did eventually die.

Quote:

New International Version (©1984)

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."

Quote:

New Living Translation (©2007)

except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die."

Quote:

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)

But you must never eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because when you eat from it, you will certainly die."

Which translations reflect the correct meaning of the original? How should we interpret this passage?

[wayfinder]

"the angel of the Lord"is Michael, is the Lord, is God(family name).

Any other angel goes by it's own name i.e. Gabriel. Michael is no longer in the form of an angel, He is in the form of mankind.

Genesis 2:16,17(Septuagint) And the Lord God gave a charge to Adam, saying, Of every tree which is in the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil-- of it ye shall not eat, but in whatsoever day ye eat of it, ye shall surely die (be put to death). Simply put, obey God and live, disobey God and be put to death. Look at all of the laws that God gave that required the offender and his family be put to death. God did not put Adam and Eve to death that day, because they were needed. The payment of death had to be paid in full and was paid by the Son of God. The death for violating God's command was the second death. Adam and Eve died(1st death) not the second death. The Son of God was put to death and payment was made in full, then He rose from the tomb because He was not guilty and the second death could not hold Him. This also has to do with righteousness. Adam and Eve were niether righteous not unrighteous when God made them. The tree was the test, obey God and your righteous, disobey God and you are unrighteous. Adam and Eve repented and were forgiven, but the debt incurred still had to be paid. We inherited this debt because Adam and Eve had their offspring after they should have been dead. The Son of God had two significant names, Son of God and Son of Man. As Son of God He had the right of redemption of the firstborn of God to redeem Adam from the second death. As a perfect son of man He had the right of redemption for the firstborn sons of the offspring of Adam. Remember the Passover Lamb redeemed the firstborns and Jesus was the Passover Lamb.

I am working on a book about this, and more, I may call it "From creation to Re-creation"

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: Do you really think these are all references to the angel Gabriel?

That has nothing to do with what Jesus said in John 14 and 16.

Notice what Jesus said in those chapters.

Jesus said this "helper," or "comforter" would "teach you all things," "bring back to your minds all the things" Jesus had told the disciples; that this same one, "the Spirit of truth," "will guide you," "will glorify" Christ and be "in you."

Do you believe that Jesus was speaking of the angel Gabriel in those verses and when he talked about "the helper," "who the Father would send" in Jesus' name?

Also, please notice what Christ said in Acts 1: 8 and what Peter said in verse 16. Peter said that it was the Holy Spirit who spoke by the mouth of David. Was this the angel Gabriel? If not, who was it; and who is the Holy Spirit referred to in Acts 15: 28?

Quote:

John3:17: : Whether he [the former SDA pastor] was right or wrong can only be determined by each of us as we study all the evidence. From my viewpoint, that means not only examining the Bible but the writings of Ellen White. The Bible itself is clear on the topic, but before an SDA can reject the doctrine of the Trinity as our church understands it, he must reject many Ellen White statements, such as, for instance, her statements that the Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Godhead and that the Holy Spirit is a person as much as God the Father is a person. See Ev. 615-617.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: This can be explained in more than one way. Ellen White also indicated that Lucifer occupied the third position of honor in heaven next to Christ, as I posted in a previous comment. When Lucifer was ousted from heaven, very likely Gabriel replaced him in said position. This would explain why Ellen White identified the Holy Spirit as a person.

Could you explain what that has to do with the Holy Spirit being the Third Person of the Godhead?

[Nic Samojluk]

The payment of death had to be paid in full and was paid by the Son of God. The death for violating God's command was the second death.