Through the Bible: Genesis

[Nic Samojluk]

I would frankly like to convince you to be in harmony with your church on the doctrine of the Trinity.

The doctrine of the Trinity was introduced by the same church which also introduced Sunday worship. Why should I try to be in harmony with the Catholic Church? I am willing to be in harmony with Rome on the issue of abortion, but not Sunday Worship, the doctrine of the Purgatory and the dogma of the Trinity.

My main loyalty is to God and the Scriptures. My loyalty to my SDA Church takes second place. Show me why my views are wrong from the Bible. And bear in mind that I prefer short and to the point arguments instead of encyclopedic expositions of Scripture. In this both you and I are deficient. We have a tendency to give long expositions which put readers to sleep.

[Nic Samojluk]

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".

Yes, this is my understanding as well!

[Nic Samojluk]

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

[wayfinder]

The difficulty with understanding scripture is that the devil has had great success at influencing what is included. Nic, you say that the doctrine of the "trinity" came from the Catholic church and you are correct. I do not accept the "trinity" concept as it is understood. I accept that God is the family name of the Father, Mother, and Son. The Woman of Revelation 12 is the Holy Spirit.

My understanding of Moses and his writting the Law is this, God told him what to write and he wrote it. Your suggestion that he was trying to influence the nations with the idea of the Creator God as above His creation is novel, but I doubt that any of the nations around Israel in the wilderness spent much time reading what Moses wrote. The Israelites were unimpresses also, just look at their history.

The Ten Commandments are the covenant of the kingdom of heaven. The fourth commandment identifies God as the creator and that creation was accomplished in six days and the Creator rested on the seventh day. As a sign of this fact, Manna was given six days a week and none was given on the seventh day, for it was the Sabbath. The first explaination given for the purpose of the sun and moon was that they were timepieces, for the reckoning of days, seasons(months), and years. The sun for days, weeks, and years and the moon for months. Then the sun was appointed to rule over the day and the moon the night. Whether God created them on the fourth day or not,is not an issue, the fact is that God created them and that is the point being made in Genesis 1.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

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

>>A simple literal reading of Scripture seems to suggest that:<<

I think that before one answers my above query, it may behoove him or her to first read the event of the ‘second’ day of creation; that is, the day upon which Gd created the firmament.

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

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

Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament(raqiya) Heaven. [...]

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament(raqiya) of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

[...]

Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: ...

Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament(raqiya) of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

Gen 1:20 ... and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament(raqiya) of heaven.

It is improbable that Gd set the sun and the moon in the very “firmament” wherein the fowls did also fly (compare: verses 17 & 20).

What then, were the two great lights that Gd set in the firmament?—notwithstanding, the interpolative and/or eisegetic interpretations of sundry translations that have given us – with their exuberant generalization – “sky”; where the Hebrew raqiya seemingly warrants more restraint in its application.

>>I believe that the scientific evidence for an old universe is too strong to accept the notion that the entire universe was created six or ten thousand years ago.<<

Indeed.

>>I suspect that Genesis one was written with the creation of Adam and Eve in mind.<<

I wouldn’t go that far; however, I subscribe to at least one Creation re earth preceding that of Genesis 1. That said, I also ponder the explicit differences between the Creation of and by

the spoken word – and that which was Gd-breathed; that is, specifically, the Creation of Adam (together with the unique Creation of Eve).

>>I also have a suspicion that the aim of the author of Genesis one was not to provide us an accurate chronological account of the events connected with creation. We have four Gospels, and nobody so far has been able to produce an exact chronological account of the events dealing with Jesus ministry.<<

One might suggest that the Pentateuch was the supposed work of one author; whereas, the Gospels were the combined work of at least four authors – several of whom may even have borrowed, somewhat, from a ‘fifth’ source/quelle.

>>Moses account might have been to lead pagans away from the worship of the sun, the moon, and the stars and to the worship of the one who created those things.<<

I recall that Gd, almost entirely, insulated the COI from the ‘nations’ – to wit: the wholesale slaughter of those they encountered.

[John317]

Quote:

John: Do you believe Christ had a beginning?

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: No! I'm glad you asked! The Bible is clear about the co-eternal existence of God the Father and God the Son. I believe that the use of the term Son is a reference to Jesus incarnation.

OK, I'm glad you shared that. I didn't know what your belief was. As you probably realize, there are quite a variety of beliefs about the Son among those who appose the Trinity. Some believe He was created and others believe that He was begotten of the Father in eternity past.

I noticed you refer to Him as "God the Son." I agree with that title because I believe it to be biblical.

Have you observed that 2 Peter 1: 1 is talking about one person when it refers to "our God and Savior Jesus Christ"? That's the correct way to translated it, whereas the translators of the KJV didn't understand the rules of Greek grammar as well as we know them today, and therefore the KJV makes it look as if it is referring to two different persons, the Father and Christ. The same rule applies to Titus 2: 13, "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," Christ being both.

Two very interesting verses in the Bible in regard to the identity of Christ are found in 1 Cor. 10: 9 and Jude 5.

The best manuscript evidence points to the use of "Christ" rather than "Lord" in 1 Cor. 10: 9. Even the so-called critical texts have chosen this reading. That would mean the children of Israel were testing Christ when in the wilderness. This is in harmony with 1 Cor. 10: 4, as well as with many of Ellen White's comments about Christ being the One who appeared to Moses at the burning bush and the One who (together with the Father) proclaimed the law at Mt. Horeb.

And some very strong manuscript evidence of Jude 5 shows that the original may very well have said that "Jesus saved the people out of the land of Egypt, [and] afterward destroyed those who did not believe." It's the reading of both codices Vaticanus and Alexandrinus, the vulgate, and Jerome, among others.

Quote:

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

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: I am leaning towards the idea that the HS refers to the invisible manifestation of God's power and presence. When this presence and power is manifested in a visible manner the Bible tends to use the expression the angel of the Lord.

What's your main reason for not accepting the position of Ellen White and the church that the Holy Spirit is a person the same as Jesus Christ and the Father are "persons" as opposed to impersonal powers or an influence?

Is your main concern to stay away from the concept of three co-eternal persons?

Let's look at some of the biblical evidence in regard to the identity of the Holy Spirit:

In John 16: 8, 13, 14, Jesus uses masculine personal pronouns for the Holy Spirit, which He wouldn't have done if He was talking about a thing or a mere power or influence.

Jesus makes it plain that if He doesn't go away, the Holy Spirit won't come as Christ's representative. But when the Holy Spirit would come, Jesus said "He will guide," "speak," "tell," "glorify," and "declare." In Acts 15: 28, "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit..." In Acts 16: 6, "... they were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia."

These verses show the Holy Spirit to be doing only what a person can do, & they distinguish between the Father and the Holy Spirit. Jesus makes it clear that He's not talking about things the Father will do, but He's describing the work of the Holy Spirit. Now these are things that only a person can do. No mere influence or power is able to accomplish these things. It requires a will and a mind to do them.

Also, in Acts 5: 3, 4, the Holy Spirit is referred to as God, and the text shows that Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit. We cannot lie to a manifestion of power or influence. People can only lie to a person. In Acts 15: 28, "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit..." In Acts 16: 6, "... they were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia." In Acts 20: 23, "the Holy Spirit testifies..." In 1 Cor. 2: 13, the Spriit "teaches." Can anything seem good to an influence or power? Can one be forbidden by a mere influence? Can a mere influence or power "testify" or "teach"?

Matt. 28: 19 says that believers are to be baptized in a single "name," and then it speaks of the "Father" and "the Son" and "the Holy Spirit."The Greek grammar makes it utterly impossible for this to be referring to less than three distinct and separate persons.

To think of the Holy Spirit as simply "power" doesn't make sense. If the Holy Spirit is "power," there are verses which would mean "the power of the power," but of course that is nonsensical.

Your thoughts, Nic?

[Nic Samojluk]

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.

[Nic Samojluk]

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.

[Nic Samojluk]

The Woman of Revelation 12 is the Holy Spirit.

[Nic Samojluk]

Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament(raqiya) of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

Gen 1:20 ... and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament(raqiya) of heaven.

It is improbable that Gd set the sun and the moon in the very “firmament” wherein the fowls did also fly (compare: verses 17 & 20).

[wayfinder]

I did answer your question about equality with God. My answer was, we are equal in the context of a family. The Father and Mother and firstborn Son are co-equal and rule the family. The family are one with each other by their heritage, they have been born into the family of God and are sons and daughters of the Father and Mother and they are brothers and sisters of the firstborn Son of God. The Firstborn Son is described in Revelation 12:2,5. The terms "with child" and "labor pains" have all been used in prophecies before to represent prophecy being fulfilled. These prophecies being fulfilled by this pregnancy and birth are the Messianic prophecies which fortold the birth of the Messiah. This is proven by the information that this Child was caught up to God and to His throne. The Messiah is the Annointed One of God and therefore sets on the throne of God. If Israel had recognized and accepted their King, He would have stayed here and establised His throne in Jerusalem. The part of the prophecy in Daniel 9:26,27 would have been fulfilled and after a final judgment, where the nations would have had and opportunity to accept or reject the Messiah, God's final judgments would have been poured out on the wicked and the world would have been restored to righteousness and the whole earth would have been filled with the glory of the Lord. The following text clearly presents the restoration of righteousness at the end of the Seventy sevens, this would have happened by 33C.E.

Daniel 9:24 "Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.

[Nic Samojluk]

Have you observed that 2 Peter 1: 1 is talking about one person when it refers to "our God and Savior Jesus Christ"? That's the correct way to translated it, whereas the translators of the KJV didn't understand the rules of Greek grammar as well as we know them today, and therefore the KJV makes it look as if it is referring to two different persons, the Father and Christ. The same rule applies to Titus 2: 13, "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," Christ being both.

[Nic Samojluk]

What's your main reason for not accepting the position of Ellen White and the church that the Holy Spirit is a person the same as Jesus Christ and the Father are "persons" as opposed to impersonal powers or an influence?

[Nic Samojluk]

Is your main concern to stay away from the concept of three co-eternal persons?

[John317]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk:

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.

...The unity among the members of the Deity does not prove the doctrine of the Trinity.

As you yourself point out, Jesus' words obviously refer to being united in our thinking, motives, and particularly in our love.

It's the same way that "one" is used in reference to Adam and Eve and other husbands and wives.

I think it's self-evidence that the Father and Jesus Christ have a unique relationship that no human being will ever be able to participate in, since humans will always be creatures.

But Jesus Christ and God the Father are not only united in attitude and purpose-- they are united in the fact that they are of one nature or essence. They are both Deity. See John 1: 1; Col. 2: 9; Phil 2: 6; Heb. 1: 3; Rom. 9: 5; John 8: 58.

[Nic Samojluk]

Here is what the Catholic Church teaches about the dogma of the Trinity:

Quote:

The Catholic Encyclopedia

"Finally after His resurrection, He revealed the doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them "go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:18)." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm#II

Compare this with the following explanation:

Quote:

Word Biblical Commentary admits Matt. 28:19 is probably not original.

"There is no evidence we have Jesus' ipsissima verba here" (598). The narrative of Acts notes the use of the name only of "Jesus Christ" in baptism (Acts 2:38; 8:16 10:48; 19:5; cf. Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27) or simply "the Lord Jesus" (tou kuriou Iesou; Acts 8:16; 19:5).

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/wordonmatt2819.htm

Quote:

The Genuine Original Baptismal Formula

!. Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus. [Acts 2:38]

2. They had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 8:16]

3. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have. So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. [Acts 10:48]

4. On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. [Acts 19:5]

5. Or dont you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? [Rom. 6:3]

6. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. [Gal.3:27]

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/wordonmatt2819.htm

[Nic Samojluk]

Here is additional information for you to consider:

Quote:

According to the editor of the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Eusebius among his many other writings compiled a collection of the corrupted texts of the Holy Scriptures, and "the most serious of all the falsifications denounce by him, is without doubt the traditional reading of Matthew 28:19."

Persistent inquiry has failed to trace the compilation referred to, and Knupfer, the Editor, has left his last Canadian address without a trace. But various authorities mention "a work entitled DISCREPANCIES IN THE GOSPELS or QUESTIONS AND SOLUTIONS ON SOME POINTS IN THE GOSPEL HISTORY" and another work on THE CONCLUDING SECTIONS OF THE GOSPELS.

According to F.C. Conybeare, "Eusebius cites this text again and again in his works written between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany ...in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew xxviii. 19, and always in the following form:

"Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you."

http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew2819.html

Read also the following:

The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/The%20Origin%20of%20the%20Trinity.htm

[Nic Samojluk]

Consider the following statements by Ellen White:

Quote:

Sin could be resisted and overcome only through the mighty agency of the Third Person of the Godhead, ... {DA 671.2}

Quote:

"Lucifer in heaven, before his rebellion, was a high and exalted angel, next in honor to God's dear Son. His countenance, like those of the other angels, was mild and expressive of happiness. His forehead was high and broad, showing a powerful intellect. His form was perfect; his bearing noble and majestic. A special light beamed in his countenance and shone around him brighter and more beautiful than around the other angels; yet Christ, God's dear Son, had the pre-eminence over all the angelic host. He was one with the Father before the angels were created."--SR 13. {TA 27.2}

If Lucifer occupied the position of honor in heaven next to Christ, this represents a problem for Trinitarians. How can you explain the idea that both Lucifer and the Holy Spirit occupied the third position of honor in heaven? For non-Trinitarias this creates no such dilemma.

Read what I wrote about this topic some years ago:

Is the Doctrine of the Trinity Biblical?

http://www.revivalsermons.org/forums/index.php?topic=3279.new#new

[Nic Samojluk]

Since the Adventist Church inherited this doctrine from the Catholic Church, we need to add a detail which we find in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Quote:

" ...the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

Now contrast the Catholic dogma with the Adventist fundamental belief:

Quote:

2. Trinity:

There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 14:7.) http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

We Adventists omitted the term “co-equal.”

[teresaq]

this seems more like a theological discussion and should maybe be moved to a more appropriate forum....?

[John317]

John: In John 16: 8, 13, 14, Jesus uses masculine personal pronouns for the Holy Spirit, which He wouldn't have done if He was talking about a thing or a mere power or influence.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk:

Notice the following: In all of these Greek versions of the Bible, the neuter form of the Greek pronoun is used for the Spirit.

14:17 Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Ed. with Diacritics

14:17 Greek NT: Greek Orthodox Church

14:17 Greek NT: Stephanus Textus Receptus (1550, with accents)

14:17 Greek NT: Westcott/Hort with Diacritics

"Auto:" [Greek] personal pronoun - accusative singular neuter

But that doesn't prove anything about whether the Spirit is a person or not, Nic. The word "pneuma" is a neuter noun. But that fact doesn't prove it's not a person. Here's why:

The word for "child" in Greek is also a neuter noun. But of course a child is either male or female. There are many words in Greek that are "neuter" which refer to one gender or another. This proves that just because a word is "neuter" doesn't mean it's referring to a "thing" instead of to a person.

(Nic, there's no such thing as a "Greek version of the Bible," unless you're talking about a translation into modern Greek. But the printed Greek texts are called "Greek editions.")

Here's one thing that proves the Holy Spirit is a person:

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 this?

[Nic Samojluk]

The Father and Mother and firstborn Son are co-equal and rule the family.

[Nic Samojluk]

this seems more like a theological discussion and should maybe be moved to a more appropriate forum....?

You made a good point. We need to move on. I intend to do so. Nevertheless, I believe that as we go through the Bible, it is fair to raise certain issues, briefly discuss them and then proceed. If I move all the side issues elsewhere, I will be spread all over and probably unable to handle the increased participation this will create. Right now I am participating in three threads in this forum, and I am behind in two of them.

[Nic Samojluk]

But that doesn't prove anything about whether the Spirit is a person or not, Nic.

[Nic Samojluk]

Through the Bible: Genesis Chapter Two

The preceding discussion was informative, but we need to move on, otherwise we will never get beyond chapter one. This reminds me of a specific Sabbath School at the Loma Linda University Church where the focus has been on chapter one of Genesis since times immemorial.

If we were to duplicate such an approach, we would need to replace the title of this thread to "Genesis One" instead of "Through the Bible."If there are any additional comments regarding the preceding chapter, I would prefer if they are rather short and to the point.