Where to begin.....

Sometimes the best place to begin is at the beginning...

Mark

Still Pondering?

Genesis, which means "beginnings" tells us how God created the world, how sin entered the world through the choice of the man and woman that God created and how God loves Man in spite of his sin.

Queenie, what can you share about the first two chapters of Genesis from your perspective.

TST, you get a shot too as long as you're here. Just some observations about the first two chapters of the book of Genesis.

Mark

PS Anyone else joining in, if you post you have to contribute, so let's get with it. We should be done with Genesis in a couple years if everybody joins in...

Prov.25:28 Like a city whose walls are broken down, is a man who lacks self control.

SMB & I were just now discussing this verse. I am wondering your thoughts about the idea that Both Adam & Eve were lacking in self control when they were tempted in the Garden of Eden. Did lack of character precede the first act of sin?

Maybe it was a lack of true boundaries for both of them. Neither of them seemed to really believe God and fell for the serpent's lie when they were tempted. (He's never had to come up with another one, BTW 'cause the first one worked so well for him.)

Lot's can be said about the fall, but that doesn't appear until chapter 3. What about creation and the first two chapters. Time to get to chapter 3 is coming, just let's get by 1 and 2 first, since we need to find out where Adam and Eve came from before we can figure out what happened to them.

Mark

Didn't I mention there'd be homework?

What can we say about God based on chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis?

Work with me here guys...

Mark

Adam & Eve walked with and were taught solely by God himself. With no worldly past they still entered into sin (no public schools to blame, no rotten parents, no disfunctional family).

They made a choice. They disobeyed. They did not even begin to comprehend the consequences of the choice or the disobedience.
Agree?
Disagree?

TST, I agree I think, just trying to get to Gen 1 and 2. 3 can take days to discuss and then no one will want to talk about 1 and 2.

Mark

I'm sorry Mark,

I'm in the slow learners section.........I'll get back into chapter 1 & 2 now...lol

Sometimes I find myself in "special class" as well...

I see the theme of God making something from nothing weaving in and out of the first chapter. God can take something formless and create not just a work of art, but bring it to life with such intricate attention to detail that it amazes me. He cares about every single little detail around me and in me.

Mark [/quote]

Ok I'll take the first shot at it....

God had a plan, but it was more like a blank canvas. He added components one by one and made sure things were to his liking before moving on. Even then he made "adjustments" in verse 4-5 there is a clear separation between day and night (I interpret as good and evil)but in verse 16 he creates the moon to give light in darkness.

He also shows himself as fatherly because he provided for all of man's needs before creating him from dust, then after giving him dominance over all living things he gave him what he would need most... woman.

3 days...with a rookie like me, we might be a month. LOL

One of the first questions that comes to my mind as I read the story of the creation is "where did God come from." We actually learn later, in Exodus, that God's name means "I Am" implying that God is self existent. Since God is self existent and all other things have a cause or source for their existence, all other things therefore are ultimately created by God. In other words, everything we can see, hear, touch, taste, smell or perceive of in any way or manner, has as its ultimate source, God. This does not simply refer to the physical world either, but to everything that there is or might be that is as of yet undiscovered or unrealized.

The word used for God in Genesis, is a word that is plural and yet is used exclusively with the singular masculine pronoun, he.

The word for day, yom, can refer to any set or repetitive time period. Some scholars debate whether it means a day, an age, or an epoch, while others say that when used in OT writings and used in conjunction with the concept of morning and evening it always refers to a 24 hour day. Suffice it to say that what ever the period of time being referred to by the word in this passage, the result is still the same. God created all that there is from His own sheer will. It was not simply fashioning something from ingredients or components that already existed, but the universe and all matter, space and time within it were the result of God wanting them to be.

Chapter 1 verse 2 says that the earth was formless and empty. Some suggest that between verse 1 and verse 2 that the great battle in heaven between God and Lucifer took place and the result was the destruction of the earth. In my thinking however, this is not the case since verse one begins with a phrase that indicates the origin of the heavens and the earth and then simply describes the earth as being without form or shape until God intervened. This to me does not imply some prior event that is heretofore unknown or unspoken in the passage, but that this is the beginning of all that there is.

So basically, in the beginning, God...and before the beginning, God...Since God is the source and the reason for the beginning of all that there is, including time, which means in part that He exists outside of time and other dimensions that we can perceive, since He exsisted before they came into exsistance, solely by an act of His will.

And after He created the earth, God made plants, and animals, again of his own will and actions. Some have tried to say that God set things in motion and then stepped back to watch, leaving evolution to do the rest of the creating, and yet, the passage does not hint that this could be the case at all. It specifically says that God created these things, as their complete forms, does not say that he used or allowed one form to be modified into another or that He gave the whole process a nudge and then sat back to observe.

When it comes to Man, which is the Hebrew word Adam which means the Man, the passage specifically states that God made him from "the dust of the earth." Now we can say this means that Man is made up of dirt or lint balls or whatever we would like, but in reality, it simply means that Man is made of the same things as the rest of the earth with one important additional detail. It says in 1:27, "Let us make man in our own image."

A couple observations here. Of all the creatures God created, only Man is mentioned as being made in God's own image. This raises Man above the animals in that God clearly made man to fulfill a purpose, yet to be stated, but that can quickly be found as we read on. The second thing is that annoying plural word being used again, in that God says "Let us make Man in our own image. But in the next verse, 1:28, it says that God created Man in His own image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them."

And this also leads us to something some point to as being a problem within the text, in that God has at this point created male and female and it isn't until the next chapter that we read of Eve being made form a piece of Adam. But this is really a worthless argument since a common literary method of introducing any character to a story is to mention him by name and then back track within the story to show how he came to the point where we first met him. In this case, the fact that the female is mentioned does not reduce the validity of the next chapter where we learn how it was that the male and female persons came into existence.

When God had finished His creative endeavors, He took a break, or rested. There are a couple of lessons in this for us today, one being the concept of Shabbat or Sabbath, which simply means "seventh" and refers to the seventh day. God set an example to us that we should set aside a day to rest and recover from our activities, though He himself requires no actual rest, since He does not require sleep or recovery from any activity since He does not tire and therefore does not need to recuperate. He created the entire universe and all that it contains, and perhaps even things outside of the universe as yet unknown to us, since we are finite and God is infinite, by the force of His will alone. He did not have to labor to accomplish what He did, simply to speak it into existence.

The idea of Shabbat is also very important in terms of what it means to His people. When God commanded the Israelis to keep the Sabbath, He was making them very different than those around them. In the world of that day, only the very rick even got a day off, let along one day a week from cradle to grave. The idea of avoiding all work on one day per week made them stand out from all other peoples of the world in that day.

More about Shabbat when we get to Exodus.

Anything anyone wants to add or ask about Genesis chapter one before we go on?

I still want to here what you guys have to say about this...

Mark

TMTS,

Don't get too wrapped up in analogies that point to concepts that are not clearly taught in scripture. The idea of light and dark standing for good and evil is a popular one in many religions, but in this case simply means what it says, daylight and darkness...

The idea of a good and evil force, sort of a yin and yang or some such is not a biblical concept since those other religions all consider both good and evil to be self existent and the battle between them to be eternal. But the bible teaches that God created all things, including Lucifer whom He created as an angel who then rebelled against God because He wanted to be like God himself. (another poor choice made)

More on this in Chapter 3.

Good observation about God establishing all that Man required in order to survive before He created Man. God works that way. He always has just what we need ready for us right when and where we need is. Gee, it's almost like He knows what is going to happen before it happens...

Queenie,
Are you reading along here. Have you got anything to add or challenge from you Jewish teachings?

Mark

Hi Mark,

So take it for what it is, no more no less. I get it.

You mention that some believe that there was a battle between God and Lucifer. I don't see where they would get that from.

Those who believe this relate to the story of how Lucifer rebelled and took a third of the angels with him. Those who believe this think that they were cast out of heaven onto the earth and this was what caused the earth to become formless and dark, since they say, God would not create anything that had no form or function. While that might be a true statement, I don't see that God was done creating the earth until after it was no longer formless.

Much of this kind of thinking comes to us by the fact that the scriptures came to us today in English through the King James translation of 1611 and later. Because our words don't always mean the same things they did in 1611, we sometimes lose a bit of what is being said or in some cases might miss it completely until we understand the context of what is being said. In this case, the King James said "void and without form" and so it is easy to see that God would not create nothing as part of creating the earth. But once we realize that the passage really simply means that God made the earth and the heavens, here referring to the sky, stars and rest of the universe, he did it out of nothing at all...

Does that help?

Well you began without me...

I understand it to be that G-d made the world in 6 days and he saw that it was good.

On the 7th day he rested.

It was after breathed life into Adam and then made Eve from Adam's rib. G-d told them they could pretty much do anything they wanted as long as they didn't eat from the tree of knowledge.

I believe that Eve was created to be a helpmate to Adam. But in simplistic terms she met up with the serpent and he convinced her that what G-d was saying wasn't really important and got to disobey G-d and she ate from the tree.

When G-d asked Adam what had happened, I am pretty sure he lied and covered it up and G-d got mad. And he punished them with having to work all their days and woman will have pain in childbirth.

Am I close?

Not yet, but I like that idea and want it.

I agree that they didn't even stop to consider their choices. I don't think they had faith in what G-d was trying to teach them. Or even thought that G-d was trying to teach them.

It's funny and yet interesting because my understanding is that he created night and then day, hence the reason that all Jewish holidays begin at sundown, which is a very significant thing to us considering Shabbat begins on Friday night.

To be a help mate.

3 days...with a rookie like me, we might be a month. LOL

Wow, you guys are in a hurry to get to chapter 3 aren't you. I'm still thinking about chapter 1 and 2 and you guys are all over the fall and marriage for some reason...

OK, we'll skip most of chapter two and go right for the good part, chapter 2 verse 15 and onward...We'll include chapter three while we are at it, so you guys can talk about boundaries and choices and all of that kind of stuff...

Mark

Actually, if you examine the text it does support your assumption Queenie. Since the text states that there was evening and then there was morning in each case, we can assume that the night came before the day. And this is in fact where the idea of the day beginning not at sunrise but at sunset comes from. Until the sun shone its light on the earth there would be no day and so night must have preceded the day by that reasoning as well.

I'm reading along and I want to go read up on the two verses as well.

I seem to remember that each time that G-d created a new night and then day, it he looked at it and saw that it was good.

I guess one could think that he was being arrogant and admiring his own work. And that there is a bad mark so to speak to G-d. I say this because of when we get later in to the portion.

Or G-d was taking an accounting of what he was creating and seeing that it was good, helps to shape what he created next.

I want to go back and read that and see if I am right.

Be back after awhile.

I'm going to bed. See you guys later...

Mark

Personally I want to stay in 1 and 2 a little longer and since I started this... I win... just for a little while longer.

You guys are way more knowledgeable and I want to grasp this.

Ok

Woo hoo....

I knew something.

I'm doing the dance.

Ok, time for me to read up and examine..

Night Mark,

Thank you for this.

LOL, yep I guess she wins. I'm up for it.

Mark your explanation makes sense.

Hi TMTS,

What are you doing up at this hour?

Thank you. I am off to go read a little Torah and come back with a little knowledge.

I wish I had more time to get really involved with all of this. We move in just a few weeks, so things are hectic right now.

I did want to share a website that you all might find helpful:
Classic Sinai- free Jewish mp3s

I have a few of these on my iPod and I find them extremely interesting.

I was up becasue of you and Mark. LOL

Really, it's because we both had an unscheduled nap after supper. That and I was getting into the scripture study, went back and read chapters 1 and 2 a couple of times.

Wow I just stumbled across this thread, VERY interesting!

One of the big things for me in Genesis is the whole 'free choice' perspective. I've heard so many people make excuses for so many things in the thought of God has everything planned out so whatever happens is destiny. I personally think Genesis proves that is not the case.

My 2 cents...with that and $5 you can get a cup of coffee!

Thanks Mojo,

Come back and join us when you can. Where are you moving too?

Hi MVG,

You are welcome here anytime.

I think I might agree with everything you said with the understanding that G-d knows all that can happen and leaves those choices up to us and will turn those choices into good or bad.

Maybe something as basic and G-d instructing Adam and Eve into not eating from the tree of knowledge of good and bad. Torah talks about how G-d took the man and placed him in the garden to till it and tend to it. And then he commanded the man "Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat; but as for the tree of knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat io fit, for as soon as you eat of it, you shall die.

G-d knows what will happen if you choose either way. I think he allows us the choices to choose, but the consequences or benefits are planned out.

I think that what happens and maybe this is too soon, and I have learned this experience is that G-d will turn bad choices into good someway if you allow him. He lets us choose, is there watching over us, hurts for our choices and loves us when we come back to his fold and make different choices.

I hope that makes sense.

A few things that I picked up on when reading last night and would like to read again and see where it takes me...

I think Mark you mentioned it....

Gen 1:26 - Amd G-d says, "Let us make man in our imagne and after our likeness.

From the beginning it talks about G-d as a single entity, and up until then he is the one making things happen, but at this point and really only at this point it is, let US make man in OUR image. The inference that someone else is involved here. Who, I have no idea.

And then the rest of the portion goes back to G-d doing.

The other thing I noticed and am just commenting on, not sure why is that G-d let's Adam name all the animals. Why? He has done everything else up to here, why this? Is there some significance to it?

Can we leave the Eve part for later on. This is HUGE in my book. I also want to mention that Eve is the name of the OW in my life. Is there some significance to that?

I could be wrong, but I think of the plural showing up when it comes to man as the Trinity which would be so necessary for man to live... the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The naming of the animals makes me chuckle. It seems to be a perfect example of how God provides everything for us, but he doesn't do everything for us. God knew that Adam would have charge over the animals. Bringing each animal before him to name, gave God the opportunity to teach Adam and show him all that God had done.

The first two chapters, for me, are confidence builders. They tell us who provides everything for us and how special we are to Him. He has created everything we need physically and spiritually. In 2:7, He not only created us in his image, but it indicated that we weren't really living beings until God had breathed life into us. How dear is that? He spoke all creatures into existance, but we are the only ones that He gave His breath to. I think it reflects the intimacy of God's relationship with us and is a precursor (if not the first instance) of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Hi Exodus,

Nice to see you. This is where it will get fun for all of us.

Since I don't believe in the holy trinity I don't know if that is something I personally can agree with. What I can do is search it out with my rabbi and see what she says.

I hadn't ever thought of it like that. Very interesting.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by confidence builders.

Mark, I've been reading this thread with interest but I'm not sure about participating or to what extent. So for now I'll just toss out a couple of things for consideration or passing over as each person chooses.

tst wrote:


I would submit that Adam and Eve were sinless prior to the "Fall." As such, the "cause" of the Fall was not a lack of character, it was something else.

I would suggest that the "something else" was Pride. By God's command and design, Mankind was at the "top of the totem pole" on earth and nothing on earth was higher. NONE could be an adequate or equal in the helpmeet department for Adam, and God gave Adam enough time alone to realize that for himself. Thankfully, God is still patient with us.

They also knew God and talked with God, an interesting side discussion in itself as to "who" or "what" they talked with since the Scriptures clearly state that no human can see God and live.

But suffice it to say that they knew God as Creator and LORD, a "step up," if you will allow the understatement, from themselves.

Then along came someone else who had Pride as the "problem," someone who sought to turn God's "latest creation" into his own.

The "appeal" was to Pride; "be like God, knowing good and evil."
An interesting appeal since there was no evil at that time, especially to "children" who had mentally never even thought about "evil."

And you can safely bet that the fruit that hung on the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was VERY good, very pleasing, and very tasty...no bitterness there.

That IS how temptation, even today, comes to us...presented as very appealing and desirable.

"Sounds good to me!" "I want to be more like God!"

Kids!


Also, Mark, you were talking about the days of creation. I believe the text teaches literal "24 hour" days. But I'm not sure if discussing that is what you had in mind, so I'll leave it at that for the time being.

Hey, Queenie. Good idea for a thread topic. Though you are right, it will get interesting.

By confidence, I mean just that. Confidence in who the creator is. Confidence in His power. Confidence that He has made provision for our every need. Confidence that we are important to Him. Confidence that no matter what happens in this life, He is worthy of our praise and worship.

I believe that we have all come to appreciate our belief systems and understand that our differences are what helps us get through this time in our lives.

I for one have changed immensely in that I am interested in hearing what others think, but don't necessarily agree or support that

*********************EDIT***************

Wow! I go to work and can't get here and I have all sorts of stuff to reply to and comment on. I will get to all of it eventually...I hope...

FH,

You're more than welcome to add your input as we go along. FWIW, I do agree with you about the 24 hour day being what is referred to here. I just pointed out that there are those who make the case for it being some time period longer than that. A Jewish scholar I was listening to today made the case for it not having to be a literal 24 hour day based on the idea that before Adam, it was all still about God and His time or timing, which really has little to do with how we perceive time at all, since He is infinite and exists outside of time.

This teacher said that with the creation of Adam, as a finished completed creation, with the breath of God breathed into him, the clock being used to measure time stopped being God's and became Earth time, a 24 hour cycle of night into day and back again. Can't really say his premise is correct, only that using the same text, with his own assumptions, he seemed able to rectify creation as being either literal 24 hour days or longer periods of time with no significant theological repercussions to either argument.

Queenie,

I will address some of what you said further when I get to it, but for now I want to point out that while we are free to make our choices for ourselves, God does not choose whether the outcome is to be good or bad, for He can only choose what is good, and in fact best. He can use whatever choices we make to His overall benefit and for His glory, no matter what we choose.

He does see the end from the beginning and even knows what choices we will make at any given time, but that is not to say that He makes those choices for us in any predetermined sort of way. We often fail to realize that God knows what will occur because He is looking at all of time from outside of time itself. Nothing we do surprises Him because He already knew what we would do, and He has planned for that.

Knowing that something will happen in a certain way does not mean that the outcome has been predetermined, only that it was known before it happened, just not to us, since He can see everything that is yet to take place as clearly as He has seen what already took place in ages past.

God needs us for nothing and yet He created Man for a purpose. And that purpose is that we might have a relationship with Him. When you consider that the God who created the universe, simply from His own act of will, and spoke into existence the stars, the sun and the moon as well as the planet we live on, in just the right place to sustain the life of Man with all the things Man needs to survive, and then created us solely for the reason that He wants us to know Him personally, it staggers the mind.

I'll be back later...I need to go home to my wife right now...

Mark

Mark,

I understand what you are saying. I think this is what I was trying to say, but sometimes my words don't convey my true meaning. What I find that some people have a very hard time imaging that G-d is into our lives that much. Personally I believe it. I have come to depend on it to make my way through this.

That's pretty mind boggling when you think about it, not to mention how he must hurt for us knowing, at least for me, knowing when I was going to make such awful choices and watched me doing them knowing it will killing me inside.

Did you mean but only NOT to us? Meaning G-d knows what will happen, but not to us?

And it staggers the mind that he wanted it to be with EACH ONE of us.

Have a great evening with your wife?

I went and edited it since you quoted it and it is still clear as mud...

What I meant was that it is we who do not know what will happen, but God does know. It is just us that is in the dark on it.

That help?

Mark

Immensely, though I really knew what you meant, just wanted to make sure.

The result is still the same mind bogglingness because of what you write and I have come to believe true. I think we get caught up in that it needs to be happy all the time and that's just not life. We all have a journey to walk in finding our relationship with G-d, some do quickly some do not so quickly.

And possible we can see this with Adam and Eve as well. Adam heard what G-d said and chose something different and G-d knew that didn't he? Because if Adam hadn't of chosen that way, we wouldn't have the bible stories to ponder today would we? Or see how it fits into our life.

Mojo, I checked out the site and downloaded a few to my laptop at work. I listened to two of them yesterday and found them to be interesting.



Mvg, I think people misunderstand what it is that God does when He preordains something should happen. The bible does not teach a sort of kismet or fate at all. Fatalism is not a biblical concept, though it sometimes appears those in the stories have accepted it as true. God can and does use our mistakes for His own good in the long term. He has also planned for the choices we have made and knows what will happen as a result and has planned for that as well.

But what this means is not the same thing as saying that God will do things His way regardless of our choices so much as He will do it in spite of our choices. He hasn't planned our choices for us, but knows before we do what they will be. What is missing from the fatalist's point of view is the fact that we do still have the power to choose for ourselves. While no matter what we choose, God will come out the other end still God and still in control and still all knowing...it is still up to us to make the choices. It isn't God's plan that is at stake, but our relationship with Him, which is, in the final analysis, what we are here for.


Queenie, As Exodus1414 said, as a Christian I believe there are references throughout the Torah and Prophets that point to the trinity, even without the NT writers POV thrown into the mix. Gen 1:1 uses a word for God that is plural in form and yet used with singular pronouns and verbs. The very first verse of the text shows this anomaly and I would choose to believe that it was for a reason. But at this point, I think we might need to avoid the debate and just accept that the language is what it is and seek commonality rather than division. Debates are seldom won by logic and conversion, but only by sheer force of will of one or the other sides. This results in winners and losers and though the battle might be won, it can be at the cost of the relationship, which I think is God's whole point.

Exodus1414, I think that what you say is true as to God giving us everything we need but still requiring that we somehow participate. Often times our participation needs to be accepting what God is offering to us but we do need to keep on truckin'. I also think that like any good teacher, God knows that we will retain more of what He is teaching us if He can get us to arrive at the answer rather than jut giving it to us.

But the commandments, I think are a case of God saying, "Look at this...I don't want you to get this wrong so I'm not leaving it up to you to figure out. Make sure you pay attention to this because it will be on the final test..."

FH, I think you hit on the heart of the choice issue. Since sin had not yet gained a foothold in the world, it was not sin that caused the pride, but pride that caused the sin.



When the serpent came to Eve and began discussing the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he suggested that eating of the fruit would make her and her husband like God himself. While we read it today as "knowing" good and evil and thinking that it simply means that we will be able to tell the difference, the concept expressed here goes much deeper than that.

What is at stake here is who has the right to make that decision? Since God made all of this and it is His in every sense of the possessive, He has a right to do with it as He wishes. It is not for any of the creation to tell Him what is right or what is wrong, since it is by His option that we are here at all.

So when we read that the serpent said that by eating from the tree we could know good and evil, it is really saying that we can be like God because we will be able to decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong. When we take on the role of making that decision, we are in fact taking on the role of God and that breaks the first commandment pretty bluntly. We put ourselves above God or at least in a place equal to Him and so doing put our selfishness before Him. This is the essence of sin, ignoring God's opinion and elevating our own to equal or higher status.

Today the world is full of the concept of moral relativism and believes that there are no right or wrong answers. All that matters is that we believe we are right and feel good about ourselves. As long as we accept it, what others, including God thinks doesn't matter even a bit, since we will figure out for ourselves what is right and what is wrong.

It's the same lie the serpent told to Eve; "You will be like God..." He has had to tell no other lies since the first one accomplished what he wanted, the breaking of the relationship between Man and God, just as his relationship was broken when he too chose to make himself equal to God. It's the same lie he tells today...

Time for work...

Mark

Hi Mark,

I completely understand and agree with the debating part. Though I would also offer that at this point, I am really treading on unknown territory and want to explore the differences not as debate but as a learning opportunity for me.

For instance the part about the "us". I asked my rabbi that and she was explaining that the rabbi's suggest that G-d was talking to the angels at this part.

Having the differing points of view will help challenge me in a new and exciting way and that I welcome. I hope that makes sense.

But I agree, the debate thing.. Not what we are here for.

Alas, I think that is what happened with Adam and Eve. He knew what they would choose and let them learn the lessons by going through the experiences.

Alas the wayward mind possibly?

I think another important factor here is that it shows the key method Satan uses to exploit our weakness and inject doubt into our faith life. He focuses Eve's attention on the one item that God has made off limits rather than the many that God has made available. How quickly we still fall for the notion that God has abandoned us, or doesn't really love us, or is against us when we get something in our sights that that we want but aren't getting. Whether it is health, or a job, or a relationship, or a material item... we can all be dooped into believing that if it isn't going our way, then God must be either holding out on us (Eve), punishing us (Job), or must not exist (because a good God wouldn't allow _fill in the blank__).

I know this to be true in my case. And you are so right.

Agreed.

Queenie, I'd be willing to discuss this a little bit, but I'd rather not debate it. If a discussion is what you'd like to have then we can do that in the hope of gaining some understanding of the text and what Moses said when he wrote it.

Debating is fine, but if it's objective is to "win the argument," I rather not approach it from that perspective, but would rather approach it from the basis of "textual criticism" as is used for all literature and let the Scripture interpret Scripture.

I really am in agreement with you and seek the same thing in gaining understanding.

My understanding of Torah is extremely limited to almost nil. I am not interested in winning an argument as in challenging me to learn Torah. And understand other people's perspective.

Obviously at times we are going to get to parts that aren't the same interpretations, but I think if we keep as this is "my" perspective and understanding in it will allow for our differences while exposing other points of view.

Torah is meant to be discussed, argue and picked apart. I don't know much, but I know that.

Queenie and FH,

I look forward to the discussion, but alas, I have a meeting tonight that will probably go past 10. I will check in when I get home, but will only post if I'm not fried by then.

Mark

You guys haven't been waiting for me, have ya?

Why yes we have

We are moving to Japan. We'll be there for 3-4 years. We are all pretty excited about it. Hubby comes home from Guantanamo in May, finally. I get to do the move by myself, but I have done that before. Funny, just realized each move I have done on my own were moves to overseas duty stations (Okinawa and Guam).

I think its great to have a TORAH discussion here. I would like to participate when I have more time and energy. I do worry that the thread will slowly deteriorate into arguments of the Hebrew bible vs the Greek Testament. Maybe the thread title needs a little tweaking...

I am praying that Mark and I can keep it to just discussions. My goal is to better understand how Christian's think, but also be able to know the answers from a Jewish perspective.

I am so illiterate in Torah, that this is stretching me as a person.

Please check in.

When do you leave?

Queenie and Mojo,

I am willing to limit it to whatever you are comfortable with. I will answer any questions you ask me wherever and whenever possible, but I will stay away from anything you are not comfortable with.

Mark

There you are, I thought you went to sleep

That's actually is very sweet of you to offer that. And we will keep it on the table.

I started this thread because when you share your wisdom and insight it brings calm to my inner self and peace to my spirit. You have a way of looking at things and stretch me as a person.

If I am to study to become a rabbi, I want to study with you for awhile and learn things.

Where I was once uncomfortable learning others people's beliefs, I now embrace because it helps me look at my own thoughts and conclusions....

Nope, not yet. Got home from our church board meeting around 10:30, had a bite to eat and been looking at lighting equipment and production and media software for our remodel project.

You guys can have a conversation without me, you know...

I am kind of tired tonight, so won't try to contribute a whole lot tonight. Maybe something in the morning, if I get up in time, or tomorrow night...

Mark

And so, continuing with 1 and 2... My rabbi aluded to the fact that the rabbis notice the pluralness as well and make mention that G-d might be talking to the angels. Which is interesting to me because I didn't realize that my religion believed in angels.

And one more observation. You haven't ever commented on the name of the OW in my life being Eve. Do you think there is any message from G-d on this and if so, what could I take from it?

What kind of remodeling project.

And we are having conversations without you. Just not as in depth. At least not yet.

Wanna propose any homework for me?

Queenie,

The stories in Torah are full of angels. Angels appeared to Abraham to tell him and his wife that they would have a child together in their old age. Angels appeared to Lot and warned him of the impending judgment on Sodom. In Gen 22 it was the angel of the Lord that stayed Abraham's hand from harming Isaac. When Jacob fled from his brother Esau (Gen 28), he stopped at Luz and named it Bethel (Beth-El means house or dwelling place of God) because he saw a ladder extending from the earth up to heaven and traveling on it were angels, ascending (meaning they were leaving the earth to return to heaven) and descending (coming to earth from heaven.) It was an angel that appeared to Jacob in his dream to tell him how to breed the goats. (Gen 31)

Lots of instances of angels in the Torah and the History as well.

Angel, BTW, is from the Greek word for messenger. The word actually comes into the English not from Greek NT writings, but from the Septuagint which was the official translation of the Torah in the days of Herod's temple, after the time of the Maccabees. This koine Greek Torah was said to have been translated in for Ptolemy II around the second century BCE.

Tradition says that Ptolemy questioned whether Torah was really from God and had seventy rabbis translate the Torah separately and they all translated it the same way. Reality is probably more along the lines of 70 Rabbinic scholars translating Torah into koine Greek at the behest of Ptolemy so that the masses could read it, much like the Roman Catholic Church had the Vulgate translated and King James had the first English version commissioned. After Alexander had conquered most of the middle east and southern Europe, most of the then known world spoke Greek as the language of commerce and government. Even after the Romans had replaced the Greeks as rulers of the area, the language of the common people remained Greek for every day business transactions. The Jews of the region also spoke Aramaic at the same time, which would have been the language that Yeshua spoke though he and other rabbis of the day also read and sang Hebrew, since the temple scrolls were copies in Hebrew, as they still are today.

As to the significance of OW being named Eve...I think it is simply a minor coincidence. I don't think God is trying to tell you anything by her being named Eve any more than if she was named Sarah or Abigail or Bathsheba or Esther...I also don't buy into Kabbalism or mysticism or...

OK. Now it's really late and I have to go off to bed soon. G'night, Queenie...

Mark

The issue at hand seems to be in the word "might." It is possible, so studying the entirety of Scripture is also part of determining how this term, "us," is both used and what it means.

As Mark said regarding the angels, even Lucifer is an angel and was the "highest" angel of the LORD before his pride lead him into rebellion and sin.




No, I don't believe there was any message from the LORD in her name. Her "name," is "woman" and that's the same name for all females, regardless of the "moniker" that someone uses to differentiate one woman from another woman. Even then, people can also have the same "name" and still be completely different people.

What the "message" from the LORD may be is that "people sin" when they don't submit their lives to the LORD in humble obedience to His will. And we ALL sin, that is "the" message about human nature and following our own "wants and desires" when they conflict with God's will.

It seems as though concerns of conflict on the thread were first raised after I introduced the word Trinity and Queenie stated her disagreement with my explanation.

I didn't feel that she was offended by what I wrote, and I wasn't offended by her response. I took her "this will be interesting", in the same way I meant mine... that we would all be learning much about the Word and each other as we discussed the scriptures our faiths share.

I apologize if anyone else was offended by my post and reaction, or saw it as antagonistic in any way.

And this applies to nearly everything in scripture as well. All scripture must be examined in light of scripture to see what the real message is from God.

To read Torah without the Prophets is to miss out on the application of what Torah teaches. Since prophets were sent by God to correct the thinking of the people who already had the law and commandments, there must be something in the message they bring that has, or should have, an influence over what we do relative to Torah.

And in the books of history we read about not only various people from before the Babylonian captivity, but also about their relationship with God and how they were corrected by God, either directly or through the prophets. And we learn what the consequences of failing to learn the lesson God is trying to teach us really is.

When God gives us a riddle, He often gives us the solution to the riddle elsewhere in scripture. When a child learns, he begins by learning the fundamentals of language. I don't mean classes in grammar and speech here, but that first he learn to talk and to communicate via language. Once sufficient language is grasped that information can be imparted by speaking to the child, he begins school and learns to read and write the language he is already speaking. Eventually, some may pursue advanced forms of communication or other languages, but it is through learning the basic building blocks of language that all other learning is made possible.

So too, learning the basics of scripture is crucial, but just like learning to ask for more juice or milk is not sufficient, neither is reading the stories of the Torah and only interpreting them in light of themselves. So much is missed in our understanding by doing it that way.

For example, who was Ruth? She was the wife of a Jew who died while in a foreign land. She was, in fact, a Gentile. When she became a widow, instead of remarrying another Gentile, she remained faithful to her mother-in-law and returned with her to Israel. Once there, she was shown kindness by Boaz who applied a concept of one family member redeeming another before the city elders though she was only related to him through the husband that had died, and one of her descendants was David...

So here was a Gentile who not only was redeemed and made fit to become a part of Israeli society, but she became the great-grandmother of the great king, and so too, the ancestor of Messiah...

Now none of this applies to the "let us" phrase we have before us, but unless we know the story of Ruth, we would miss a good portion of the story of David. We might also miss a lesson of God's ability to redeem even those who are "foreigners." In fact, another ancestor of David is Rahab the harlot who hid Joshua's spies on the eve of the battle for Jericho. She and those with her were all saved though every other living thing in the city was absolutely destroyed. The walls of the city all fell, but here was a house within the city wall that was spared, and that spared house belonged to a harlot (some argue simply an inn-keeper, though other places in scripture she is referred to as a harlot which you wouldn't know until you read the rest of scripture) who became an ancestor of the House of David.

I'm just pointing out that none of Torah can be fully understood in light of only the passage we might be reading. Knowing the rest of scripture is what opens up the meaning found in the nice little stories we learned when we were kids. What are the real consequences of disobeying God? How does God redeem those who sin? According to the code of law, it is by offering sacrifice. But David sinned and said, "You do not delight sacrifice or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise." (Ps 51:16&17 -written after he had committed adultery AND murder)

That's why so many read it and can't understand it. You can't read it like a library book and get much out of it. You read it day after day and learn a bit more and now when you go back and read the same things over again, new meanings come to life because you know more. The more you read it and study it, the more it contains. And when you choose to apply it to your own life, that is when God reveals it's true meaning.

Mark

Exodus1414,

I don't think anyone took offense and since none was intended, I don't think anyone thinks you were trying to offend.

My personal hesitancy to discuss the concept of the trinity right now is more due to the fact that we could debate that alone for many many pages and never arrive at anything other than exhaustion. We would miss the experience of looking at scripture and trying to understand it's meaning, when building on what is here first and foremost can lead to greater understanding later.

When I became a believer, the doctrine of the trinity was not the very first thing I was taught...Nor should it have been. Some never really delve into deeper theological and doctrinal issues and God still loves and accepts them.

And while I am avoiding the issue of proving the trinity right now, remember that I am really the one who brought it up when I commented that the word used for God in Genesis is a plural word used with singular pronouns and verb forms. I just didn't pursue it as a tangential study of the doctrine of the trinity right out of the box.

When God gave the Law, He began with ten things that were most important. He then gave 613 specific things that He required as it applied to those ten things. The rest of scripture opens up for us what those ten really mean and how the 6130 apply in our daily life.

If we really Love God with all our heart soul and strength, what does that look like in our day to day world? If we really love our neighbor as we love ourselves, how does that affect my dealing with the people driving like morons on the highway every morning?

Of all the things created by God, only Man is created in His image. Only Man has that divine spark, the very breath of God, the ability to have relationship with God and get to know Him and be known by Him. And the really amazing part of this is that it applies to all people, not just those who were born into the line of Abraham or those who choose to follow the Law or those who choose to believe Yeshua is Messiah. All can be redeemed, though many will not be because they will choose to continue to believe the lie the serpent told to Eve, that they can be like God...

If you would like further explanation of why I keep avoiding the issue, email me and we can discuss my reasoning off line.

Mark

This is the gift of how G-d will work in my life if I let him.

As well as I don't have to be so hard on myself, because I am relatively new to studying Torah and there is much to read, reread and wait on G-d for meaning to me. Which is also going to be different than you or anyone else.

In many ways, the interpretations we come to are our own anyway, there is not right or wrong because it's the messages that G-d is sending us for his purpose?

Off to work...

My own concerns actually came from a misunderstanding what this thread was about. I made an assumption that Mark was a Jew-- I did not realize until last night he was a Christian. Color me surprised, HAHA. So I thought this thread was for Jews and adherents to Torah (like my family, we're Noachides). I've since realized its actually an interfaith dialogue on the Hebrew Bible and some interpretations of it.

Queenie enjoys Mark's discussions on Scripture and this does give her comfort. I wish I had much more time to participate, but I will do what I can and will get into things much more deeply when our life settles down... which might take a couple of months. hehe We arrive in Japan on June 5th, but will be busy searching for a house off base once we arrive and that could take awhile. I will have my Bible with me, though.

Maybe we should point out what version of the Hebrew Bible we are all using? Yes its very important to know what translation people are using as their guide.

I'm using the Tanakh:The Holy Scriptures the new JPS (Jewish Publications Society)translation according to the traditional Hebrew text. Its written in modern English and has nifty footnotes. So in this little book I have the Torah, the Nevi'im and the Kethuvim right at my fingertips. It also has a great guide in the table of contents to tell you which parsha is to be read in what week of the year. Awesome!

I want to own the Stone text of Torah, but I'm waiting until after our move to order it.

Good morning Mojo,

Did you get my email? Is your Torah the burgundy book?

If so, I have the same one. Do you know about the reform movements' women's commentary? They just put it out in December.

Yes, I got your email.

Mine is a paperback and its blue. Its probably the same version just a differant cover. I am not aware of the Reform book you are talking about- though I have heard there was one to be published. I am not really sure how I feel about it, though. I guess I'd have to get the copy and decide.

I have a toddler crawling all over me, and getting kicked in the head by his knees, so I think I'm going to leave for a bit. I'll be back later and I'll see what I can offer to the Genesis discussion.

In some things I would say that there is "room" for personal preference or interpretation, but in others they are "right or wrong." For example, the Commandments are right, and violating them is wrong, not because "we" say so or because of how "we" interpret them, but because the LORD said that's the way it is according to His will as Sovereign LORD.

God has clearly not revealed "everything" to us, but He has revealed what He wants us to know so that we can by "His People."

And that is my interpretation...

Queenie,

I agree with FH (surprised?) that while there are certain things that might be open to interpretation, much of what the Bible says is really pretty plain. There is a saying I am fond of that says that when studying the Bible, the plain things are the main things and the main things are the plain things.

Basically, much of what people often miss is the context in which something is said or takes place. Customs, idioms, expressions and the like can change from generation to generation. In my days in high school, calling a girl fat was enough to get your teeth adjusted. Then in my son's days in school, to call a girl fat (though spelled phat) meant she was a hottie...We went through a similar episode when the word bad meant good and those types of things can happen often.

But there is another thing that happens when studying scripture that not many consider. Sometimes things we say in one language don't really translate well into another language. An example I have used to illustrate this is the phrase "Go soak your head!" In English, American English at that, it is used as an insult and tells someone to get out of your face. But to translate that phrase verbatim into German and tell a German to go soak his head invites the question "Is it that dirty?" or "Why? Am I on fire?" To a Frenchman, it probably means nothing at all and in Russian, it might lead to WWIII.

To Muslims in the middle east it is an insult to show anyone the soles of your feet or even the bottom of your shoes. It is at least as insulting if not more so than our own "third finger salute" so many are fond of using.

There are times when the Bible says something happened a certain way, and unless we understand the time, the place and the context, we are at a loss to understand its full meaning.

There are also things we read that relate to other things and then we have an "ah-ha" moment when we better understand what we read before because we now see it repeated in a different context or when we can begin to identify the same underlying themes in two different situations.

But as FH said, if we look at the commandments of God, there is little to interpret. What He means is really pretty clear when He says, "You shall not steal." Pretty cut and dried in my translation.

Which leads me to answer the question of what translation I use. That is hard to say, because I use several including the New International Version or NIV most of the time for explaining things to others because it is a dynamic translation, that is, it attempts to maintain the thought or idea rather than a word for word translation. But I also read the King James, the New King James, the New Living Translation, use the old Scoffield Study Bible quite often, the New American Standard at times and various other translations when I am trying to understand the meaning of something better. I also read a bit of koine Greek and will read the New Testament in Greek as well. But I also use commentaries, Bible dictionaries, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and a whole host of other research materials. I subscribed to the Bible Review for several years and also read numerous books about the Bible and what it teaches. I once read a commentary on Ruth by the science fiction writer Isaac Asimov. I found it to be quite enlightening. I even read Rabbinic commentaries sometimes.

There is also an online source I use every once in a while called Bible Gateway (www.biblegateway.com) which has numerous translations and texts available on line for free. They even have a Hebrew text, the Leningrad Codex, which I believe is the oldest known manuscript of the Torah in existence. English isn't the only language they have translations for, either. I also listen to tapes, CDs and radio programs from Bible teachers and get together with a group of men on Saturday mornings for a study, line by line of various books of the Bible. This group has been meeting for over twenty years and I have attended off and on for about 15 of those years. What is really interesting to me is that there is still so much to learn.

So the answer, I suppose, is that it depends on what I am doing at the time as to what version I am reading. What is really amazing is not how they differ, but how much alike they are. Some of the newer translations are from older texts than the older translators had available.

Be back later...

Mark

Side note to Mark:

hehehe...I've used most, if not all of those reference sources too, and still do.

If you don't have it yet, you might want to look into another one that I use frequently that is called "Quick Verse" that resides on my computer rather than having to go out into the internet. I even added the 3 available bible editions for the NIV.

Personally, I prefer the NIV for most things (primarily because of the modern day language usage and phraseology), but always with the caution that it IS a "dynamic translation" and not a "literal translation." It(NIV) helps in some areas, but can also lose some things in the literal translation and should always be checked against other texts whenever there is "study" that is being done. The "adding to" or "taking away" admonition is what I am most sensitive to in the potential "problem area" for the NIV.

If you are familier with QV, it has a ton of commentaries, etc., that are included and makes searching and researching a lot faster and easier than the "old fashioned way."

God bless.

FH,

I've been contemplating what study software to buy for many years. The problem of course is that the latest and greatest is always out of my budget at the time. I have a few online and PC based search engines and the like that I use and do have several printed things to use as well. I also have access to our church's library 24-7 since I have a key to the building and the public library is about 5 blocks from my house, so I also go there sometimes if I am looking for something I don't have access to any other way.

I have been looking at ILlumina software lately and would love to buy it, but my budget right now is so negative that I need to work for three years after I am dead in order to retire, which is fast approaching the way things are going.

Mark

Yep, it's always a balance. I held off on getting QV for a number of years because I couldn't get the NIV with it, as it was proprietary to Zondervan. However, QV and Zondervan got together and now it is available as an "add on" book(s) to the system. In fact, many books that don't come with the base package can be added on later if desired, so you can manage, sort of, the investment in resources.

The base package is so extensive that I only really wanted to add the NIV, and just did so a couple of months ago.

I have the 2008 version running. I also have the 2007 version and only upgraded for a little more user friendly dashboard. I'm still not convinced I like it much better than the 2007 interface.

BTW, QV is currently selling the 2007 version for 60% off! That's a very good deal. I use the Standard edition of the 4 and it handles just about everything I want to do. The normal price for the Standard is about $130.00 but the 2007 version is about $52.00 right now. If you are interested in researching it more you can go to www.quickverse.com and check out all their offerings.

Another resource that is FREE, and what I used before getting the full Quick Verse and still occasionally use for some of the free stuff I added like the MacArthur Commentary Library and the R.C. Sproul library, is from the E4 Group. A lot of good study stuff there and it also uses the basic platform of Quick Verse. The site if you want to check it out is www.FreeBibleSoftware.com

I've missed a few days but wanted you to know I'm here...lurking

May I ask a favor, could you update me on 'where' we are now? What we're observing?

I don't have much to add..many questions.

mvg - ask away! If you post the questions that are most important to you or uppermost in your mind, it would be easier to begin to talk directly about them.

"Side trips" are not uncommon when someone brings up something of interest to them, and Mark and I got off on a side trip into study software. So ask about what's on your mind to get it back "on track" or refocused on what is of curiosity or importance to you.

Hi MVG,

I think we were at chapters 1 and 2 in Genesis, or it is also called Bresheit (in the beginning).

Which also brings to mind something that I was learning about this weekend. Bresheit (in the beginning) language back then was predominately Hebrew and then Greek. At least I think it was, however, what I do understand is that Torah was written in Hebrew and so there is always going to be interpretation into what was really written, because some words have no literally translation.

Mark has often mentioned that Torah is the whole picture that we are looking at, not just each chapter and as I am coming to a place of more familiararity with Torah, the whole message will become more embraced and understood and each passage will build on how G-d meant the whole message.

So, Scripture 101 is in full speed ahead.

Queenie - I have to admit to getting highly confused as I can't seem to glean any specific areas of question yet. The closest I have seen so far is a potential discussion of what the word "us" refers to when God used it and whether or not Adam and Eve had a sin-nature that caused them to sin. The only other areas that seemed to be touched upon are why did Adam get to name everything and why did God choose to form Eve from a part of Adam and for what purpose was she made?

But this is too much like a "shotgun" approach to discuss cohesively, so it would be helpful (at least to me) if you picked ONE topic at a time, discussed it, and then moved on to the next topic. But I have troubled juggling too many balls at one time, so it might just be my own limitations, and as some Dirty Guy once said, "A man's got to know his limitations."

Do you want to talk about the "us" factor first? That seems like a logical starting point since the decision to create, and in what image, came first.

Hello to everyone!!!
I am sorry for sticking my nose here, but this topic is very insteresting to me.
I know that sometimes you guys do not trust people that you don't know or that haven't post his/her story. Well my story is somewhere in GQII (I think is page 5)
FH.
Does the "us" word refers to God and Jesus? If so, could you please elaborate on this?

Thank you,

A.

Hi Angie,

I'm glad you are here and welcome. Please join us, but please know that this board is an open dialgue about scripture. I am Jewish and very proud of that fact. Mark, has often given me words of wisdom that prompted me to start this thread and enter into dialogue of what we get out of it.

For obvious reasons, there will be times and situations that are completely different. This thread is not about right or wrong, but our own interpretations or understandings.

You are not alone in your thought about Jesus first coming into existence here. I think the "us" is very interesting because no where else as G-d creates the world is there mention of us, until you get to man.

One other possible explanation is G-d is speaking with the angels.

Please keep coming back.

I read what you are saying FH, and I will try to come up with questions that will not teeter from the topic. Thank you for you willingness to ask for what you need. I am still learning that for myself.

So, Mark touched briefly on it, but if this is where Jesus is first introduced, why would it be with respect to G-d forming Adam and breathing life into him? And not somewhere else?

Genesis 1:26 And God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and they shall rule over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the sky, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

Simplest terms- God is using a royal-like 'we' when referring to himself as he adresses his court in heaven (his angelic creations). This is simply plurals of majesty.

I've heard several rabbis explain it like this:

Until there was man, there were only animals on the earth. Since these animals could not *choose* to worship God, Hashem had to wait until the creation of man, as that creation was special and had the capacity to choose God. Once man was created, God could then be appropriately called 'king' as this begins Hashem's reign over mankind.

He then addresses his court with the majestic 'we' because Creation is done, and Hashem is proud of it. Like saying 'mission accomplished.'

Hi Angie. Welcome to the discussion.

There are two prevailing thoughts regarding this. One is the Jewish thought that God is alone (one) and that the word usage here was either God speaking to the angels or to Himself in a "third person" sort of way. The second is the Christian thought that this is the first indication of the triunity nature of God and referred to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit relationship of God. (God exists as one God with three distinct persons, each equal in essence but different in the roles that they perform).

So the question would seem to be what "has" God revealed to us about Himself throughout Scripture?

There are undeniable truths about the nature of God and there are some things that are descriptive of Him and some things that we don't know (for example: HOW a being can have no beginning and no end and be eternally "present", essentially outside of our "space-time continuum" and who sustains our universe by His will and power, or HOW someone actually creates things out of "nothing" and creates life from "non-living" matter).

I have to go out of town today, so I'll pick up on this discussion more at a later time.

So for now, just touching on the "highlights," remember that the author of the book was Moses. This scene that Moses is writing about, under the inspiration of God, is about "I AM." This was the God who spoke to Moses from out of the burning bush and answered Moses' question of "who shall I say sent me when I am asked." Moses KNEW God. Moses did NOT have to use the plural form of the word for God (Elohim) in this passage, but did so to indicate the triune nature of God.

"I will make man in MY image..." versus "Let US make man in OUR image..." Something to consider at this point is that God WILL NOT share His glory with another, nor are we created in the image of angels. We are created in the image of God to have a relationship both with our spouse (two but "one flesh") and with God.

Now if this was the "only" time God appeared to Man, we might not be able to examine the words "us" and "our" in light of God's continuing revelation to us, in much the same manner that we would know little, if anything, about how things came into being apart from the direct revelation of God. But God chose to reveal truth to us through the Scripture, originally the 5 scrolls known as the Pentateuch (the Torah), and then continued His revelation through the remainder of the Old and New Testaments. The "old" being those writings leading up to Messiah and the "new" being those writings from HOW God provided the promised Messiah and our "new position" (relationship) with God as a result of what only Messiah could do for us.

So in answer to your question, yes, the "us" and "our" refers to the ONE God consisting eternally of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in perfect relationship with each other, not 3 distinct "gods."

As FH just stated, the very first verse of Genesis uses the plural noun Elohim as the name for God. But is is used with singular pronouns and verb forms throughout the book of Genesis.

And keeping in mind that if Moses did indeed write all five books of Torah, he could have used the same name for God throughout the text, but he chose to begin his narrative of creation, as related to him by God, by using a word that is unlike any other used to describe God in any language. And I think it is a clue to God's nature...

Read totally within this context, any of the explanations given fit the text. He might be addressing the angels, but that would mean the angels were created in God's image as well, and this would specifically be the only indication of that being the case in all of scripture. And since God has a habit of repeating things He wants us to know, I think it is less likely than the other two.

Which leaves us with the option that God is using the "royal" or "rhetorical" we to refer to himself...

Or that God is in fact speaking to the other two "persons" (not meaning additional gods, since God is One God) of the trinity. Yeah, I know, it's hard to follow...And it gets harder as you try to explain it further. We rapidly begin using Latin and Greek words for which there is no true English equivalent.

At this point I think we could continue discussing the trinity, in which case we might never get to discussion of the fall of Adam or God's call to Abram to leave home and follow Him. We can continue down this road, though it will take us far from the story of creation before it ends, or we can continue as we have been going through the text, remembering this issue and discussing it when it comes up again.



The choice is really up to you, Queenie.

I fear the result of pursuing it further now will be that we will begin and end with this discussion and nothing else will come of it. If you want to hear the proof for the Trinity, it is something that can be laid out in all it's complexity, but if we follow that direction, we will be jumping from text to text and maybe never get back to the story that Moses wrote for our benefit.

Mark

How do you interpret the word 'image'? An actual physical image or something else (mental,emotional,???)?

I prefer to keep to the story and leave the jumping around for later.

I am way too new at this to do that.

Let me finish working with what I am doing and I will be back with more thoughts or questions.

MVG,

I would say it is not a physical image, since God does not have a physical body, if we discount the idea of the trinity here for the time being, which gets us back into the discussion direction we were headed down before.

Based solely on this text, we have very little to go on, however, if we assume that God created us for the purpose of having a relationship with Him, because He is about relationships, then part of His image applies to the desire and need to have relationships on our part, sometimes called "social cognition. "

But God also has other attributes that we might also share. Among these is having a spiritual side to our persona as well as a physical. He is creative, as He created all that there is and we share that attribute as well. We also have the ability to reason and have rational thoughts, which is unlike any other creature on Earth, so that points, I think, to that too being a part of being made in His image. We are self aware or have consciousness.

We can have abstract thinking. That is, we are capable of thinking something through from start to finish without actually experiencing it first. We can combine two things we know and derive a third thing with no other data. It was Aristotle that said that if I know A and I know B, I can know C. It is only Man that can invoke things that are unobservable or not in our experience.

We also have the ability to make moral judgments and though the right to make them based solely on our own right to do so is only the result of the fall and our rebellion against God, we have a free choice to decide to obey Him or not.

He also has attributes that we do not share. These include omniscience (God knows all there is to know), omnipresence (everything in the universe is directly before God which is not to say that He is everywhere, but that everywhere is before Him) and omnipotence (He is all powerful-that is, nothing is impossible for Him and there is nothing He cannot do, with the caveat that He cannot be or create evil since He is good and nothing in Him is evil).

That paragraph is clear as concrete, isn't it?

These are things we do not share with God, so these attributes cannot be what He was talking about when He used the word "image."

Queenie, do you know the Hebrew word used here? It eludes me right now and I will have to look it up when I get home...Might take me a while.


In the mean time, if we move on we can always come back to this issue since we will begin to see some of what God means by this as we get into other portions of scripture.

Mark

OK. I looked it up. The word translated as image is the Hebrew word "tselem." Another word in the passage, the one used as "likeness" is the word "demuth." So the passage reads "Let us make Man(kind) in our image (tselem), according to our likeness (demuth).

Especially the word "demuth" is significant in this case as it implies similitude beyond just similarity. It pretty much says "just like." So while we have no further light to shed on what specifically God meant when He said "in our image" we do know that He meant it to mean Man would in some way(s) be just like Him.

I think that by examining the attributes of God and comparing them to Man we are on the right track in that we can eliminate some things that we know are dissimilar and at the same time we can identify those things that Man has in common with God.

FH, you want to add to that?

MVG, does that help at all?

Queenie, where ya at?

Mark

I can't read Hebrew, not always translate it into English, but in my Torah it is v'tzalmo v'tzelem. That's what I am reading, not sure it's correct.

Mark, how do you know that G-d was all about having relationships and not just creating things?

My WH thinks he has a great relationship with G-d. Can someone be living in that kind of sin and have a good relationship with G-d? I understand that they can believe it, but can they actually have a good relationship with G-d?

Can we come back to this when we get to Noah?

Yes, let's move on. Chapters 3 & 4?

[/quote] The word translated as image is the Hebrew word "tselem." [/quote] I got it to and I did it by reading it in Hebrew and translating it. I wasn't too far off. YEAHHHHH

I don't know if this really makes a huge difference, but I found it interesting in figuring out tzelem, when it says man the word is et-adam (hebrew version :)). I don't know why, but I find that interesting.

As I read further into the commentaries and take it for what it's worth, in section 26 - it says Mankind is described as in a special sense created by G-d himself. To me that implies he was having help with the other things that were created.

I was at my son's lacrosse game. He won 13 - 6. Had a very fun game.

Queenie,



The Hebrew word for man is adam. The accusative "et" modifies adam making it collective rather than singular meaning that it refers to all mankind rather than simply to the first Man, Adam.



I don't think it implies that at all. I think the meaning is simply that Man was created by God as opposed to coming about in some other way or having any other creator.

The same words for "image" and "likeness" are used again to describe Seth. It says says that Adam begot a son in his image and likeness... The special sense in which Man was(is) created refers to this, that we are created in God's own image. Thus we are a special creation of God Himself, not that He didn't create everything else, but that we are unique.

Am I getting clearer or making it even more difficult here?

As far as God being all about relationships...God made woman so that Adam didn't have to be alone. So woman too is unique in that her purpose was ordained specifically by God in order to be a helper for man.

He refers to us repeatedly as His children. Israel, the nation, is referred to variously as His children or His wife. All throughout the scriptures, God says that He loves us, specific individuals, families of people, the nation Israel... I think this points clearly to God desiring a relationship with each one of us.

I'm treading softly here because I am trying to not bring New Testament theology into the discussion right now. But for me the Bible as a whole is the story of God, who created the universe from nothing, made all that is on the earth and then made man and woman. When the man and woman chose to disobey Him and follow their own prideful ways, the special relationship they had with God was broken, since God cannot allow sin to be present before Him. Anything sinful would be consumed by His mere presence. From the story of the fall throughout the rest of the Bible, I believe is the story of God providing a way to restore that special relationship between Himself and Man. So to me, the Bible isn't just a collection of stories, but one complete story, that of the relationship between God and the Man He created for that purpose, whom He loves.

That make sense?

Mark

I am following you totally.

And as you write further, I would totally agree that Torah is written as a book of life. A way to prosper and have a relationship with G-d.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Thanks Mark & Queenie!

Queenie - I don't want to speak for Mark, but I thought I'd post an idea about this for you to chew over and see what you think about it.

How I know it's all about relationship between God and man is threefold.

First, God said "in our image" only about Man(kind). You only have relationships with someone who is "cognitively aware" and capable of having a relationship.

Second, God taught Adam about relationships by allowing him to interact with all the creatures that God had created, including naming all of them. Not one of them was suitable for a "relationship," and THEN God made Eve FOR Adam as a suitable "helpmeet" with which he could have a real relationship.

Third, SIN broke the "perfect" relationship between God and Man, and it got so bad that God was sorrowed that He had even made Man. God cannot have a relationship with sin, but Man can, and that exchanges the intended relationship with God to one with something else that replaces God. The Flood was the result, with a "do over" with the 8 people who survived the Flood. Sadly, not even the first hand knowledge of the Flood was "enough" and it still hasn't been enough through the ages, up to and including today.



The short answer is "No" to both questions. Try Joshua on for size with this one. "Choose ye this day who you will serve, but as for me and my house we will SERVE the LORD." Either we CHOOSE to serve the LORD or we don't.

Hi Forever,

I am on my way out to a AA meeting. I need to concentrate on what you wrote. I really appreciate what you wrote by the way. I just want to look at it when I can concentrate and not be in a hurry to walk to my meeting.

See you after awhile.

Q

Has the thread died or is everyone out walking?

LOL, I was waiting for someone else.

I hope this thread doesn't die, but I also get lost because there is so much on in my head that I get unfocused.

So, given that we were made to have a relationship with G-d, for someone who is just really learning how to do that.

I truly want to have my relationship with G-d be his will running in my life, but how does one have that or know that you are in his will?

So, as in the email this morning from Charlene that Cares, I have felt the need to go back to the beginning and look with new eyes as this is the road map to my life that G-d wanted me to live.

I'm not sure where this journey is going to take me, but as I read that G-d made man in his image and likeness it dawned on me that I really don't know what that is.

Is it that G-d made us perfect just the way we are and that we don't need to look at what's on the outside and therefore judged by others and even myself?

Any thoughts?

Yes, I have many thoughts on this subject. The "trick" will be trying to address what YOU want to talk about and ponder as it may or may not apply to your life.

So, to that end, let me just comment on three of your questions as perhaps a starting point, or a continuation of previous "trains of thought."




It begins with know what God has revealed to us in Scripture. Why were we created in the first place? What purpose is there for human life? Once the "Fall" occurred, how CAN we "get back to a relationship with one to whom ANY sin is anathema? Do WE "choose God" or does God "choose us, whomever HE chooses?"




No, God made us perfect the way we WERE, before the "Fall." The Fall corrupted not only Mankind, it corrupted everything. The "judgment" is the comparision of the holiness of God with sin. "Be God," or "be LIKE God," that is the question that was first posed to Eve and continues to be posed to this day.

HOW do we even KNOW what sin is if there is no objective standard to compare actions, thoughts, and choices to? IS there such a thing as an "authoritative standard" that applies to everyone, regardless of their personal opinion? If so, then that also results in an "absolute moral standard" of what IS "Good" and what is "Evil." Sin, as a concept, does not exist independent of a Holy reference point, does it?



Try this one for size and see how it fits with your thinking. God is HOLY and sinless, that is His image.
God is "us," as in let "us" make man in "our" image. God, being a "jealous God," will NOT create humans in the image of Angels. For just one "proof" the "big difference" between angels and humans, God created mankind with the ability to reproduce, to "create" after their own "image." NO angel is CAPABLE of procreation. Therefore, the "us" and "our" cannot refer to God speaking to angels. If He was NOT speaking to angels, to whom was He speaking? "I will create man in MY image," or "We(us) will create man in OUR image?"

Think about this aspect of the "image of God." God created Man (Adam) to be a relational person, but there was no creature on earth with which Adam COULD have a relationship. The direct implication of the statement of God is that God has a relationship with someone who He is "comfortable with" including in "our (His own) image." So God was "in a relationship" from all eternity. Now God has taught the man that he does not have an "equal" on earth with which to have a true "God-like" relationship, and it became time to complete the creative process by making woman to BE that relational partner. Yet God did NOT "create" woman from the dust of the earth, He formed her from Adam, an inseparable part of him, so that Adam could not say that she was "different" or of some other "essence." She was different in personality, in really being a "separate but equal" person, but was "bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh," so that there was no difference in essence.

I have to look up what anathema means first, then go back and read it with a better understanding.

I'll be back on this one.

I certainly don't think I can be G-d, but that hasn't always been the case. Who I was before this journey was someone who tried to control EVERYTHING and all that accomplished was the destruction of my M and a family that I cherished. So, I never was and never will be G-d. I would accept that I want to be like G-d, but those are qualities that will come as I look to G-d for his purpose in my life. I'm here for a reason as is everyone else. My life, my qualities, my person has a gift to bring to this world, and I am in search of that purpose for G-d. It could be my capacity to love people no matter what, even as my heart breaks. Who knows, I certainly don't today.

I guess I would have to look at this in reference to living in G-ds world or not. If you choose to live in G-ds world and we all have free choice to or not, then I would accept Torah and Talmud as laws of life that will help me to live a life that had an "authoratative standard". Therefore in G-d's world, sin does not exist independent of a Holy reference point, and I would imagine you are suggesting which I accept that the bible is the holy reference point? We just might have different versions?

I need to give this some more research and thought. I look at this from a different perspective than you and honestly have not thought about it enough to be confident with what I believe. So let's table this for a future time, ok?

Forever, I really appreciate the way you stretch my thinking, but I would ask that you understand I am just a beginner at this and sometimes need a little time to figure out for myself what is in my heart and/or through what my religion teaches. Not to defend but come to a place of acceptance of everyone's beliefs. Fair enough?

I was going to reply this morning, but I see FH beat me to it.

I I think maybe we can see more about what it means to be created in God's image by moving forward a bit. We still are only hinting at chapter 3 in all of this discussion. We can continue to talk about the word "us" and the word "our" for years and keep dancing around it the whole time.

Genesis 2:18-25 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)



Of interest in this passage:

All the creatures of the earth, including the man, were made from the "dust of the earth." That is, each and every creature including Adam, was made from the same basic components as all the rest. The difference was that Adam (et-adam or mankind) was different in that God said that Man would be made in the image of God. As FH has pointed out, the word "us" cannot be referring to the angels, since the angels are not said to be made in God's image. They also have no male and female functions like we do and therefore cannot create after their own kind as we can.

When Seth was born, it is said that Adam begot a son after his own image and likeness. This is something the angels do not have the ability to do, since they are not male and female and do not have creative power to create after their own kind.

But of all the creatures, only Woman came not from the dust of the ground, but from a piece of Man. She was created so that Man might have a relationship with an equal, just as God has if we consider the "us" again. (But I want to move past that word for now)

It has been said that Woman came from Man's side so that she might be equal to him. Not from his head to be above him nor from his foot to be below him.

She was taken from Man so that without her, he is incomplete and since she was made to be his helper, it is in Man that Woman finds her purpose. That is, it is the relationship with her husband that fulfills the purposes of God in a woman's life. Not that she is meaningless without her husband, simply that it was for this reason she was made in the first place.

And without his wife, the man is incomplete, since she was taken out of him. By having a relationship with his wife, Man too fulfills the purposes of the one who made him.

In verse 24 we see that it is so that Man and Woman can have the kind of relationship God intended that other relationships must end or be modified in order for it to happen. The passage says that for this reason, that is, to become the primary relationship in a man and a woman's life, the man must leave his father and mother, those who have raised him to that point and nurtured and cared for him and be united to his wife so that the two can become as one. It does not say that man will rule over her or that she has no purpose but procreation or any of those silly things so many have tried to make the scriptures say over the years.

It pretty clearly, from my view, says that the reason a woman exists is to have relationship with her husband. And likewise, since she was created solely for the reason that man might have a relationship with her, it points to that as well. But there is another important part of this passage that has been discussed for many years that we also need to address at this point, I think.

Verse 25 says that they were naked and felt no shame.

Now over the course of history, there have been those who have said this has to do with sex and how having sex is only permissible when in a marriage ordained by God etc...

Many have said that since they were innocent, they had not yet learned to be ashamed of their nakedness and so they felt no shame.

Some have attempted to go a step further and make it mean that there is nothing in being naked that we need to be ashamed of when standing before our spouse or even that nakedness is our natural state and so we need to glory in that state and run around naked all the time. Some say it means that shame is a response to something that is man-made and it is only whether or not we feel shame for our actions that matters, since we then can be unashamed if our society permits our actions or at least accepts them. If you twist this concept far enough you come up with moral relativism and all it implies and the rest of this book goes right out the window, for if what is right and wrong is not God's decision but our own, the very next chapter is meaningless.

But what this verse really states is that both the man and the woman stood before God naked, unashamed and with nothing to hide and no reason to need to cover anything up. They were after all, created in His image and therefore could stand before Him based solely on their own merit and condition, which was blameless in His sight. That is, they were sinless before God and could stand before Him of their own accord.

And this once more points to a relationship between God and Man...

Let's go to chapter 3...

Take all time you want, it's okay with me. When you want to return to the question about what "image" means, we can pick up on it again.



Hey, slow me down anytime you want to. It takes time to wrestle with these thoughts and to ponder potential answers to questions.

Here's a key difference that you may need to know about me. I accept people as all being created in God's image. I do not accept everyone's religious beliefs, though I do try to practice tolerance of the choices that others make.



What you may call the Jewish Scripture is what I would call the Old Testament. They are, except for the ordering (sequence) of the books and the naming of some books, identical. Obviously, the Scripture that I use also contains the New Testament that is not a part of the Jewish Scriptures. For now, however, we are confining our discussion to the Old Testament and may, at some point, need to talk a little about the New Testament as it pertains to the Old Testament promises and prophecies of Messiah.

Mark,

If you are around.... I could use a little scripture to focus me on G-d.

Queenie,

I have a board meeting at church tonight. I'll try to catch up with you later.

Mark

Thanks for the scripture on my thread. It really helps when your wisdom is around. And your choice of scripture.

I hope life is treating you well.