The Literal Meaning of Genesis

[Barbarian]

Does the Bible have to actually say "trinity" for it to be true?

Nope. Just pointing out that it doesn't say anywhere that there is a Trinity, three persons in one God.

It seems inescapable to me that there is a Trinity, given the sum of all scripture. It just never says that specifically anywhere. But there are many things that are true, that are not in the Bible. The Bible itself says so.

 

[Jim Parker]

Yes I have heard of those councils of which you speak.

Oh. I see. You "heard" about them. And that's good enough for you? You think that qualifies you to comment on them because you "heard" about them. That is a very sad state of affairs.

I have also heard of the shepherd of Hermus but so what?
The shepherd of Hermus once enjoyed canon status, but later lost it.

But you've never actually read the entire Shepherd of Hermas, right?
And, no, it never had canon status.
You denigrate and dismiss the writings of those whom you have never read. Yet they were much closer to the teachings of the apostles in time, space, and culture than you. Do you not see a problem with denigrating things that you don't know anything about?

Who was right? the early Church or the earlier than early Church.

The scriptures themselves demonstrate that there were controversies over doctrine in the primitive church. (Acts 15) But because you have not put in the time and effort to learn something about the continuing controversies that beset the early church during it's formative years, and therefore have no knowledge of them, you jump to the conclusion that nothing of importance occurred. That's like saying that the next important thing that happened after Acts 28:31 was Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses on the church door 1500 years later. (Or, if you're a Pentecostal, the Azuza Street revival in Los Angeles in 1906)
It seems to me (for what that's worth) that it might just be a good idea for you to learn about a subject before you mock and reject that about which you know next to nothing. Then you could have something of substance to offer.
Just a suggestion

 

[Jim Parker]

There are many other passages in Scripture that leave trinitarians with no choice but to believe in a trinity.

And yet, there are many who read the very same Bible and come to the conclusion that the Trinity is false.
Just like people read the very same Bible and come up with OSAS and the "sign gifts" ceased with the apostles or when the last of the NT was written or that Baptism is just a sign that you officially joined the church or the the Eucharist is just a symbol of the Body and Blood and...and...and...
They all do it basing their "truth" on their reading of the same Bible and the leading of the same Holy Spirit.
And they are all sure they are right.

 

[calvin]

Oh. I see. You "heard" about them. And that's good enough for you? You think that qualifies you to comment on them because you "heard" about them. That is a very sad state of affairs.

But you've never actually read the entire Shepherd of Hermas, right?
And, no, it never had canon status.
You denigrate and dismiss the writings of those whom you have never read. Yet they were much closer to the teachings of the apostles in time, space, and culture than you. Do you not see a problem with denigrating things that you don't know anything about?

The scriptures themselves demonstrate that there were controversies over doctrine in the primitive church. (Acts 15) But because you have not put in the time and effort to learn something about the continuing controversies that beset the early church during it's formative years, and therefore have no knowledge of them, you jump to the conclusion that nothing of importance occurred. That's like saying that the next important thing that happened after Acts 28:31 was Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses on the church door 1500 years later. (Or, if you're a Pentecostal, the Azuza Street revival in Los Angeles in 1906)
It seems to me (for what that's worth) that it might just be a good idea for you to learn about a subject before you mock and reject that about which you know next to nothing. Then you could have something of substance to offer.
Just a suggestion

Jim (edited by staff) ... you judge without knowledge....that is what is a sad state of affairs.

 

[calvin]

And yet, there are many who read the very same Bible and come to the conclusion that the Trinity is false.
Just like people read the very same Bible and come up with OSAS and the "sign gifts" ceased with the apostles or when the last of the NT was written or that Baptism is just a sign that you officially joined the church or the the Eucharist is just a symbol of the Body and Blood and...and...and...
They all do it basing their "truth" on their reading of the same Bible and the leading of the same Holy Spirit.
And they are all sure they are right.

Just as there were many shining lights in the past who had different understandings.
As the teacher said, "Ecc 1:9. What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. Esv
Yes, how true.

 

[reba]

Apparently, his Greek wasn't so good, either.

The "eye for an eye" thing goes back to the Code of Hammurabi. It became a figure of speech in Mesopotamia for "justice will be served."

Didn't know about the "view", but obviously, the meaning remains, regardless. Sounds like someone was doing a play on words only a scholar would catch.

enough closed for moderator review

 

[Mike]

Reopening. Let's do better, brothers.

 

[Randy]

In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth

About the Son
“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.

Jesus=>"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,


God created - thats the importance not the time line. I myself don't hold to evolution and would state life on earth is young. And the earth was fashioned by God to support such life that He created.

Don't ask me how old the universe and earth are as I don't know.

Randy

 

[Cygnus]

Nope. Just pointing out that it doesn't say anywhere that there is a Trinity, three persons in one God.

It seems inescapable to me that there is a Trinity, given the sum of all scripture. It just never says that specifically anywhere. But there are many things that are true, that are not in the Bible. The Bible itself says so.

The Bible does two things..
1, Presents the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit as God.
2, Tells us God is one.

Either there is 3 Gods or 1 God. If there is one God then there must be a Trinity. Trinity is something people call, describe it as.

 

[Eugene]

God created - thats the importance not the time line. I myself don't hold to evolution and would state life on earth is young. And the earth was fashioned by God to support such life that He created.
Don't ask me how old the universe and earth are as I don't know.

Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

 

[Cygnus]

Inserting new ideas into Genesis is precisely how the modern doctrine of YE creationism got

Creation, YE style, like the Trinity was something realized to be true. It wasn't thought about until the Atheistic challenged the Bible.

 

[Randy]

Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

I do believe and also testify that God created and what He created God created through His Firstborn Son.

The Father (from whom all things come)
The Son (through whom all things come)

If you read genesis its begins with a world covered in water. The Divine Wind (Spirit of God) over the waters. Its cold in space so how do we already have a planet with so much water without a heat source such as our sun? So I set the time line aside as there is too much ambiguity which leads to useless battles among the saints. The importance is God created. If you follow the genesis's time line the sun hadn't yet been created. I do believe God created our sun. I don't know how or when or how long it took. But again I state I do believe life on earth is young and God fashioned the earth to support the life He created on this planet. God also stated He stretched out the heavens. He made all those things. But again I don't know how old the creation is.


By faith
Isaiah 40:25-31
2 Peter 3:5

Randy

 

[jasonc]

Creation, YE style, like the Trinity was something realized to be true. It wasn't thought about until the Atheistic challenged the Bible.

Old earth geology is before that.

 

[Edward]

I do believe and also testify that God created and what He created God created through His Firstborn Son.

The Father (from whom all things come)
The Son (through whom all things come)

If you read genesis its begins with a world covered in water. The Divine Wind (Spirit of God) over the waters. Its cold in space so how do we already have a planet with so much water without a heat source such as our sun? So I set the time line aside as there is too much ambiguity which leads to useless battles among the saints. The importance is God created. If you follow the genesis's time line the sun hadn't yet been created. I do believe God created our sun. I don't know how or when or how long it took. But again I state I do believe life on earth is young and God fashioned the earth to support the life He created on this planet. God also stated He stretched out the heavens. He made all those things. But again I don't know how old the creation is.


By faith
Isaiah 40:25-31
2 Peter 3:5

Randy

You're right Brother. It does read that way and we do not really know. I think that once we are living in the eternal realm, outside of time, that we all will probably be able to go there to the (so-called) time, of creation and witness it. That will be exciting!

Riddle. What's faster than the speed of light?


















Darkness!

 

[Barbarian]

Old earth geology is before that.

Yes. Long before YE creationism was invented, most creationists were aware that the world was very old. Most of them were convinced that living things had been here for a very long time, as well.

 

[Barbarian]

Riddle. What's faster than the speed of light?

Quantum entanglement:
https://phys.org/news/2015-11-nist-team-spooky-action-distance.html

 

[Barbarian]

Creation, YE style, like the Trinity was something realized to be true.

No. As you learned, the prevailing view among early Christians was that the creation story in Genesis was not literal history.

It wasn't thought about until the Atheistic challenged the Bible.

It was invented by the Seventh Day Adventists, based on the visions of a "Prophetess" in the 20th century.

And it wasn't initially very common among fundamentalists until somewhat later. The creationism presented in the Scopes Trial, for example was Old Earth. YE is a very modern revision of Genesis.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

No. As you learned, the prevailing view among early Christians was that the creation story in Genesis was not literal history.



It was invented by the Seventh Day Adventists, based on the visions of a "Prophetess" in the 20th century.

And it wasn't initially very common among fundamentalists until somewhat later. The creationism presented in the Scopes Trial, for example was Old Earth. YE is a very modern revision of Genesis.

The problem with this is who among us has the testomy of those who are long gone. The answer is no one. Who can say long ago they did not believe in the bible as it was written. The real answer is that even in the writtings of the bible it tells of people who did not listen yo God and did not pay attention to His words from the prophets or from the scripture. But these are also the cery people the storues in the bible rebuke. Should we say then that later early christians did not believe but are more justified to not share in the same critisms as their forefathers in disbelief?

Jesus warned that anyone who disregarded anything written in the scriptures and taughts others to do the same would be the least in the kingdom of Heaven. At least they would be in the kingdom though right? That's more then Jesus's next statement that we need to do better then the pharisees and religous leaders in order to enter the kingdom at all.

I find it impossibly hard to believe that reading the bible and believing it as it says it is a new and modern concept. Literal is not likely a new idea. Give reason to think literal is a modern idea. Or forget this argument altogather.

 

[Barbarian]

The problem with this is who among us has the testomy of those who are long gone. The answer is no one. Who can say long ago they did not believe in the bible as it was written.

The fact that St. Augustine was not challenged on his assertion that the creation week is figurative, pretty well says that they did accept it as written. Remember Augustine's work translates to "The Literal Meaning of Genesis", meaning "what it really means."

Should we say then that later early christians did not believe

The evidence suggests that they did believe. For that time the notion of a literal history was not even a concept the Romans understood.

Jesus warned that anyone who disregarded anything written in the scriptures and taughts others to do the same would be the least in the kingdom of Heaven. At least they would be in the kingdom though right? That's more then Jesus's next statement that we need to do better then the pharisees and religous leaders in order to enter the kingdom at all.

The Scribes and the Pharisees were masters of literalism. They thought that so long as you obeyed the literal law, you were fine. So they ignored the spirit of the law. Jesus called them out on it.

I find it impossibly hard to believe that reading the bible and believing it as it says it is a new and modern concept.

It's an ancient concept. St. Augustine was aware of this about 1500 years ago. Re-interpreting it as a literal history is a modern revision.

 

[chessman]

Don't ask me how old the universe and earth are as I don't know.

"Ancient"

Deuteronomy 33:13-15 And of Joseph he said, “Blessed by Yahweh is his land, with the choice things of heaven, with dew, and with the deep lying down beneath, and with the choice things of the fruits of the the sun, and with the choice things of the yield of the seasons, and with the finest things of the ancient mountains, and with the choice things of the eternal hills,
​

"Old"

Psalm 68:32-33 O kingdoms of the earth, sing to God; sing praise to the Lord, Selah to the one who rides in the highest heavens of old. See, he gives forth his voice, a mighty voice.

Proverbs 8:22-29 “Yahweh possessed me, the first of his ways, before his acts of old. From eternity, I was set up from the first, from the beginning of the earth. When there were no depths, I was brought forth, when there were no springs of abounding water. Before mountains had been shaped, before hills, I was brought forth. When he had not yet made earth and fields, or the first dust of the world, when he established the heavens, there I was, when he drew a circle upon the face of the deep, when he made skies from above, when he founded fountains of the deep, when he assigned his limits to the sea, that waters shall not transgress his command, when he marked the foundations of the earth, ​