Gen. 1:27
In Gen. 1:27, the first "created" is imperfect in Hebrew and the second "created" is perfect. My question is, why is the imperfect verb translated "created" (past tense) if it is imperfect? Is there a grammatical reason? Nearly all English Bibles translate as "created", but I'm thinking it is for reasons other than strict translation.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
Comments
-
imperfect — The prefixed conjugation in Hebrew. The prefixed conjugation denotes the imperfective aspect of the verb. That is, it views the action of the verb from the "inside" or from the perspective of the action’s unfolding. This imperfective aspect can speak of (depending on context) habitual actions, actions in progress, or even completed actions that have unfolding, ongoing results. The term "imperfective" does not refer to tense, though. Biblical Hebrew does not have tense like English or Greek (time of action is conveyed by context). "Imperfective" refers to the kind of action being described, not the time of the action. An action can be viewed in process in the past ("was walking"), the present ("is walking"), or even the future ("will be walking"). When the context dictates, the prefixed conjugation also conveys the indicative mood, the mood of reality. This conjugation is often referred to as the yiqtol conjugation.
Heiser, Michael S. Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology. Logos Bible Software, 2005; 2005.
perfect — The suffixed conjugation in Hebrew. The suffixed conjugation denotes the perfective aspect of the verb. That is, it views the action of the verb from an "outer" perspective, the perspective of seeing or thinking of the action of the verb as a whole and complete, without respect to the time of the action. The perfect conjugation conveys the totality of an action without dividing up its chronological processes. The Hebrew Perfect, then, is not a tense, a grammatical term that speaks of the time of the verb’s action (past, present, future, etc.). Biblical Hebrew does not have tense like English or Greek (time of action is conveyed by context). Perfective aspect refers to a kind of action, not the time of the action. An action in Hebrew may be viewed or conceived as entire even if that action has not yet taken place. When the context dictates, the suffix conjugation also conveys the indicative mood, the mood of reality. This conjugation is often referred to as the qatal conjugation.Heiser, Michael S. Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database Terminology. Logos Bible Software, 2005; 2005.
1:27 "God created" There is a threefold use (Qal IMPERFECT followed by two Qal PERFECTS) of the term bara (BDB 127) in this verse, which functions as a summary statement as well as an emphasis on God’s creation of humanity as male and female. This is printed as poetry in NRSV, NJB and acknowledged so in NIV footnote. The term bara is only used in the OT for God’s creating.
Utley, Robert James Dr. Vol. Vol. 1A, How It All Began: Genesis 1-11. Study Guide Commentary Series. Marshall, Texas: Bible Lessons International, 2001.
0 -
David Paul said:
Nearly all English Bibles translate as "created", but I'm thinking it is for reasons other than strict translation.
I will happily abstain from the theological implications of what it means to be translated one way or the other.
I will point out that some Bible students hold the text to be of divine authorship and the original is written that way by God for a purpose. While other Bible students hold that the text is nothing more than a fabrication of men. If the later is the case, it is probably a "boo-boo." If the former is the case, the Author probably said what He meant & meant what He said.
As for why English translators change what the original said; Don't go there. I got in hot water for questioning their motives. [;)]
If I can ever figure out the difference in meaning between the terms "Bible student" and "Bible Scholar" I will probably get along fine in this world.
Soapbox closed for the day.[:#]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
To supplement what Fred said, note the use of the imperfect in English does not have a one-to-one relationship with the use of the imperfect in Hebrew. From Wikipedia:
"The imperfect, often inaccurately called the imperfect tense in the classical grammars of several Indo-European languages, denotes a grammatical combination of past tense and imperfective aspect, and so may be more precisely called past imperfective. In English, the term refers a form of the verb that combines past tense
with similar aspects, such as incomplete, continuous, habitual, or
coincident with another action."Unfortunately, I don't know how to create a morphological search that would tell be how often a Hebrew imperfect is translated as an English simple past ... but that would certainly be a fun feature. (hint, hint) [:D]
Your question doesn't appear to be addressed by the commentaries in my library.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Wayyiqtol / consecutive imperfect is not the same as regular imperfect.
0 -
For clarity's sake, I understand that there is not an equivalence between Hebrew perfect and English past.
The purpose of what I said was that Hebrew imperfect, as far as I know, DOESN'T translate as English past...and yet in this verse it is so translated in nearly every English version. As ST hinted at, the implications of this issue, if they go in the direction it seems to be moving, are massively profound from a theological perspective.
Niko may be able to provide the explanation I am seeking that settles things where they currently reside, but saying only
Niko said:Wayyiqtol / consecutive imperfect is not the same as regular imperfect.
doesn't really provide a satisfactory explanation. Maybe Vincent can weigh in on this?
Btw, Fred, I appreciate your quote from Utley. It at least speaks to the existence of this issue, though it doesn't really address its meaning and implications.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
The purpose of what I said was that Hebrew imperfect, as far as I know, DOESN'T translate as English past...and yet in this verse it is so translated in nearly every English version.
Putting together what has been said by yourself, Fred, ST and myself, I'm still unclear as to what distinction you want in the English. It appears to me that the same consecutive imperfect is translated as a simple past "said" in Gen 1:3. Looking through the results of the search below, it appears that a simple past is a common translation for the consecutive imperfect. If I had more Jewish commentaries, this seems like the type of discrepancy they might address.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
David Paul said:Niko said:
Wayyiqtol / consecutive imperfect is not the same as regular imperfect.
doesn't really provide a satisfactory explanation. Maybe Vincent can weigh in on this?
Niko's Laconic reply points in the right direction. The wayyiqtol is the default way of indicating a narrative sequence. In this case the sequence is "and God said..." [verse 26] "and God created..." [27] "and God blessed...and God said..." [28]. The other instances of 'create' in verse 27 are in apposition to the first - the text isn't indicating that first mankind was made THEN it was made in God's image and then finally it was made male and female, but rather describing a single act of creation wherein mankind is both in God's image and has two genders.
Super Tramp said:If the later is the case, it is probably a "boo-boo."
There's nothing actually unusual about the Hebrew here.
The quote from Mike's glossary was only attempting to define the yiqtol, not the wayyiqol (when a waw-consecutive is prefixed to the imperfect verb), so don't let that throw you.
0 -
See, this is just one of those situations where beating around the bush doesn't flush the bird. The possible meaning that I perceive as coming out of this verse is rather straight forward, if it is plausible grammatically. So that is the issue. But the meaning would be, "God creates / is creating man in His own image [CONTINUING], in the image of God He created Him [FINISHED]; male and female he created them [FINISHED]."
In other words, the act of making man like God is an ON-GOING action, one that was understood as unfinished when Creation week was ended. Part of the "likeness" was completed and part was not. This obviously produces many implications.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
I understand waw consecutive as a rule, but can someone explain WHY one would choose the imperfect aspect to convey a perfect action?
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:WHY one would choose the imperfect aspect to convey a perfect action?
It can be helpful not to get too caught up on those labels. We could call them 'the blue tense/aspect' and 'the red tense/aspect' and then examine how they are actually used. Many modern grammars do exactly that when they define a conjugation as yiqtol or wayyiqtol (that is simply labeling according to the pattern of vowels and prefixes without ascribing a semantic value to the label itself) or Anglicizing with terms like 'prefixed conjugation', rather than using terms borrowed from classical (Greek and Latin) philology that can be misleading or even incorrect. All that is another way of saying that it is very unlikley that the decision process going through the head of the author of Genesis 1:27 was anything resembling "choosing the imperfect aspect", and much closer to intuitively (as a native speaker) picking the right (expected) tense/aspect for narrative storytelling.
I'd recommend running a search for wayyiqtols and just reading through as many as you need to until it becomes plain that this is the most common way to indicate a series of events happening more or less in sequence.
0 -
There may be no correlation between the Hebrew phenomenon we've been discussing and the Greek one presented below, but as the discussion developed, the concept of the Greek historical present came to mind.
Lk. 16 29 “But Abraham *said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’30 “But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’31 “But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’ ”* A star (*) is used to mark verbs that are historical presents in the Greek which have been translated with an English past tense in order to conform to modern usage. The translators recognized that in some contexts the present tense seems more unexpected and unjustified to the English reader than a past tense would have been. But Greek authors frequently used the present tense for the sake of heightened vividness, thereby transporting their readers in imagination to the actual scene at the time of occurence. However, the translators felt that it would be wise to change these historical presents to English past tenses.Literally, verse 29 should read "But Abraham says, 'They have Moses...
I personally think that there is more to this grammatical practice than what is mentioned in the note above. I think that in the cases where it is used, it usually calls upon the reader (regardless of when in the future they may later read) to prophetically (in a sense) envision placing themselves in that context. The language is thus intended to be in a sense "timeless". Rather than transporting the reader BACK, the language propells itself FORWARD to the reader.
It seems to me that someone could look at some of these Hebrew constructions in a similar fashion. In the Luke verses, the first "say" is "present" and the next two are "past", which is not unlike the pattern of "create" in Gen. 1:27. I realize there is more to grammar than just patterns, but for some reason these similarities grabbed my attention. Input?
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:There may be no correlation between the Hebrew phenomenon we've been discussing and the Greek one presented below
I think that's true. In Greek, the aorist tense is the default 'unmarked' way of telling a narrative sequence of events. If you look at the whole parable starting in verse 19, the stage is set using a variety of tenses (imperfect, pluperfect, participles in other tenses) - these aren't 'events' in a narrative sequence, but rather describing the conditions at the beginning of the story. Then the narrative proceeds from verse 22 using mainly* the aorist tense to describe the sequential events. So the isolated historical present in verse 29 stands out as a way of signaling to the hearer/reader 'pay attention, the punch line is coming'. (* The one other present tense 'sequential' verb in this parable is in verse 23, signaling the start of the what the man in Hades sees - another 'pay attention' moment. I note with curiosity that Dr. Runge didn't tag this instance as a historical present in LDGNT, as he does the present tense verb in verse 29 - perhaps that is to do with the way the present tense in 23 relates to the preceding participles, but I'll have to ask him.)
Contrasting with the Hebrew passage: in Luke 16:29, we do have a sequence of events: Abraham said X, then he [the rich man] said Y, then he [Abraham] said Z, and the first verb is 'marked' by using a different tense than expected. However, in the Hebrew example, the first verb is unmarked, using the expected form for narrative events in sequence, and the following verbs are outside of the sequence. So I can't see any connection here.
0 -
"Created" is a bogus word. Nothing is "created", only "made" or "formed" (in scripture). In philosophy, yes, but in scripture no.
If you replace "created" (which suggests instant fiat) with "made" you can simply use the imperfect: "the god was forming man into a statue of himself.."
He was clearly *sculpting*. He bent his knee (god is a manlike deity who lives in the sky), not uttering commands from the sky.
The "original languages" rarely resolve problems, they just seem to introduce new ones (in the hands of most).
0 -
Vincent Setterholm said:
There's nothing actually unusual about the Hebrew here. The quote from Mike's glossary was only attempting to define the yiqtol, not the wayyiqol (when a waw-consecutive is prefixed to the imperfect verb), so don't let that throw you.Super Tramp said:If the later is the case, it is probably a "boo-boo."
Thank you for caring enough to share. But I an not only NOT a Hebrew scholar, I am not even a novice. [:D] I was just assuming that if Hebrew had a differentiation, there had to be a reason one was used rather than the other. I enjoy reading these threads because those who do spend time reading the Hebrew find so many nuances in meaning that translators never get into the English
I am sure my application of English, Japanese or Greek grammar to the Hebrew probably distorts more than it helps. Pay no real attention to my mumblings about Hebrew. I'm just a beginner. [;)]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Super Tramp said:
Pay no real attention to my mumblings about Hebrew. I'm just a beginner.
At least you are a beginner, I have not started creeping as yet.
Mission: To serve God as He desires.
0 -
WoundedEgo said:
"Created" is a bogus word. Nothing is "created", only "made" or "formed" (in scripture). In philosophy, yes, but in scripture no.
If you replace "created" (which suggests instant fiat) with "made" you can simply use the imperfect: "the god was forming man into a statue of himself.."
He was clearly *sculpting*. He bent his knee (god is a manlike deity who lives in the sky), not uttering commands from the sky.
The "original languages" rarely resolve problems, they just seem to introduce new ones (in the hands of most).
I have always had a philosophical issue with the idea of fiat creation. Please point out where my thinking is flawed. In my mind, true "absolute nothingness" and "non-existence" are the same thing. However, since God is omnipresent and eternal - there has always been existence. Therefore, non-existence (or absolute nothingness) is a non-reality. There has never been "nothing". How can God create from nothing if there is no such thing as nothing?
0 -
Joshua G said:WoundedEgo said:
"Created" is a bogus word. Nothing is "created", only "made" or "formed" (in scripture). In philosophy, yes, but in scripture no.
If you replace "created" (which suggests instant fiat) with "made" you can simply use the imperfect: "the god was forming man into a statue of himself.."
He was clearly *sculpting*. He bent his knee (god is a manlike deity who lives in the sky), not uttering commands from the sky.
The "original languages" rarely resolve problems, they just seem to introduce new ones (in the hands of most).
There has never been "nothing". How can God create from nothing if there is no such thing as nothing?
I like your thinking! Question the status quo...it is ALWAYS wrong.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Joshua G said:
There has never been "nothing". How can God create from nothing if there is no such thing as nothing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo
The wikipedia article gives you the 3 major alternatives:
- creatio ex nihilo
- creatio ex deo
- creatio ex materia
You will see your particular logic path is not uncommon.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
The scriptural term, though (if we accept "Peter" as scripture) is a different term altogether:
2Pe 3:5
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth [dry land] standing out of the water [EX nHUDATOS] and in the water [DI hUDATOS]0 -
disclaimer: I offer very little from scripture to support this post. I am offering it as a philosophical statement. I do not recommend basing one's theology on philosophy.
Joshua G said:Please point out where my thinking is flawed. In my mind,
Not only is that outside of the purpose of the forum [:D], it is impossible "in your mind" If you can not comprehend it, you can not entertain even the possibility, much less the feasibility. I won't try the impossible.
You are now talking about the attributes of God. There is a big disconnect between stating the attributes of the artist and the attributes of the artwork. God frequently uses physical props to accomplish his works but is in no way limited by the laws of Physics that you and I are under.Joshua G said:However, since God is omnipresent and eternal - there has always been existence. Therefore, non-existence (or absolute nothingness) is a non-reality.
One of my favorites is Moses versus Pharaoh's magicians. Moses casts down the "rod of God" (a prop) and it turns into a serpent (a miracle outside the laws of nature.) Quite impressive! But the magicians can apparently reproduce (at least in appearance) this "miracle." The trump card is played when God's serpent swallows up the magicians serpents, and they are no more. Show is over, Moses takes up the rod of God and leaves. The magicians are standing around without their magic sticks. Their's have gone into the "nothingness" that truly exists, outside of our existence. I can sit and wonder how the magicians pulled off the miracle of changing their sticks into serpents, or I can marvel and rejoice that my God is sovereign over all. It isn't difficult to comprehend that kind of a god creating something out of nothing.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Cool, I get it now. All we have to do is dub our rant a philosophical statement, then it is no longer outside the guidelines. Outstanding !Super Tramp said:disclaimer: I offer very little from scripture to support this post. I am offering it as a philosophical statement. I do not recommend basing one's theology on philosophy.
Joshua G said:Please point out where my thinking is flawed. In my mind,
Not only is that outside of the purpose of the forum
, it is impossible "in your mind" If you can not comprehend it, you can not entertain even the possibility, much less the feasibility. I won't try the impossible.
You are now talking about the attributes of God. There is a big disconnect between stating the attributes of the artist and the attributes of the artwork. God frequently uses physical props to accomplish his works but is in no way limited by the laws of Physics that you and I are under.Joshua G said:However, since God is omnipresent and eternal - there has always been existence. Therefore, non-existence (or absolute nothingness) is a non-reality.
One of my favorites is Moses versus Pharaoh's magicians. Moses casts down the "rod of God" (a prop) and it turns into a serpent (a miracle outside the laws of nature.) Quite impressive! But the magicians can apparently reproduce (at least in appearance) this "miracle." The trump card is played when God's serpent swallows up the magicians serpents, and they are no more. Show is over, Moses takes up the rod of God and leaves. The magicians are standing around without their magic sticks. Their's have gone into the "nothingness" that truly exists, outside of our existence. I can sit and wonder how the magicians pulled off the miracle of changing their sticks into serpents, or I can marvel and rejoice that my God is sovereign over all. It isn't difficult to comprehend that kind of a god creating something out of nothing.
0 -
Silver Hawk said:
All we have to do is dub our rant a philosophical statement, then it is no longer outside the guidelines
For those poor souls who don't know the difference between philosophy and theology, a rant and a postulate, maturity and childishness,
I offer two very scary statements of Jesus:
Mark 9:23 ....."Everything is possible for him who believes."
Matthew 17:20 ."...Nothing will be impossible for you."
Have you reached Nirvana? Grasshopper? [;)]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
No. But with your help I have discovered how to bypass the rules. My hat's off to you.[Y]Super Tramp said:Have you reached Nirvana? Grasshopper?
0 -
Silver Hawk said:
No. But with your help I have discovered how to bypass the rules. My hat's off to you.Super Tramp said:Have you reached Nirvana? Grasshopper?
You can learn a lot from me ......
I strive hard to provide great examples; some are positive and others are positively negative.
You will have to learn how to think before you post. Good luck. [;)]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Super Tramp said:
One of my favorites is Moses versus Pharaoh's magicians. Moses casts down the "rod of God" (a prop) and it turns into a serpent (a miracle outside the laws of nature.) Quite impressive! But the magicians can apparently reproduce (at least in appearance) this "miracle." The trump card is played when God's serpent swallows up the magicians serpents, and they are no more. Show is over, Moses takes up the rod of God and leaves. The magicians are standing around without their magic sticks. Their's have gone into the "nothingness" that truly exists, outside of our existence. I can sit and wonder how the magicians pulled off the miracle of changing their sticks into serpents, or I can marvel and rejoice that my God is sovereign over all. It isn't difficult to comprehend that kind of a god creating something out of nothing.
You are clearly reading into the text. I do not see how this event proves that absolute nothingness (or non-existence) exists. In fact, the very statement: non-existence exists is nonsensical.
0 -
Super Tramp said:Silver Hawk said:
All we have to do is dub our rant a philosophical statement, then it is no longer outside the guidelines
For those poor souls who don't know the difference between philosophy and theology, a rant and a postulate, maturity and childishness,
I offer two very scary statements of Jesus:
Mark 9:23 ....."Everything is possible for him who believes."
Matthew 17:20 ."...Nothing will be impossible for you."
Have you reached Nirvana? Grasshopper?
I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to get at here, but I would like to add that there are true impossibilities - even for God. God is only capable of doing everything that is possible. God cannot make Himself cease to exist nor could He count to the last possible number, for example.
0 -
You failed to mention that God can not lie. Titus 1:2 in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago, (New American Standard Bible)Joshua G said:God is only capable of doing everything that is possible.
I do offer Scriptural support...so I see no need to offer a disclaimer. It applies to Logos. I think the Bible is still in all packages.
0 -
Joshua G said:
I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to get at here
Joshua, I was referring o Silver Hawk here. Not continuing our line of discussion. That is why it doesn't make much sense. But, then again...
Joshua G said:God cannot make Himself cease to exist nor could He count to the last possible number, for example.
As I said in my first response today, I can not make clear to your mind that which you can not imagine as possible. But your outlook is a western perspective. Not everyone in the world has difficulty with the idea of God accomplishing his own death. (Some say that is what God did on the cross.) Not everyone has difficulty believing God can truly forget the knowledge he has of our sins. The Greco-Roman mindset is not the only thought process out there.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
It makes no sense, No matter whom you are addressing.Super Tramp said:Joshua, I was referring o Silver Hawk here. Not continuing our line of discussion. That is why it doesn't make much sense.
0 -
In considering if God "created the Universe" or just the "formed the sky and dry land" which stands by synecdoche for "the whole sky/dry land system" (KOSMOS), I think it is important to realize how incorrectly Gen 1:1 is commonly rendered - as an independent assertion - when grammatically, and logically, it is a *dependent* clause.
When God began to create heaven and earth, and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God's breath hovering over the waters, God said "Let there be light." And there was light.
--Moses, Bereishit (בְּרֵאשִׁית, "in the beginning") Genesis 1:1-3, (translated by Robert Alter)Oddly, follows others and employs "create" and "heaven" and "earth" which are, to my estimation, merely traditional and unfaithful to the Hebrew; I would have used "made" and "skies" and "dry land". "God" for ELOHYM is also kind of weak, but you get the idea about the dependent clause.
0 -
Another:
When God began to create heaven and earth—the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water—God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light” (Gen 1:1–3, NJPS).
0 -
Joshua G said:Super Tramp said:
One of my favorites is Moses versus Pharaoh's magicians. Moses casts down the "rod of God" (a prop) and it turns into a serpent (a miracle outside the laws of nature.) Quite impressive! But the magicians can apparently reproduce (at least in appearance) this "miracle." The trump card is played when God's serpent swallows up the magicians serpents, and they are no more. Show is over, Moses takes up the rod of God and leaves. The magicians are standing around without their magic sticks. Their's have gone into the "nothingness" that truly exists, outside of our existence. I can sit and wonder how the magicians pulled off the miracle of changing their sticks into serpents, or I can marvel and rejoice that my God is sovereign over all. It isn't difficult to comprehend that kind of a god creating something out of nothing.
You are clearly reading into the text. I do not see how this event proves that absolute nothingness (or non-existence) exists. In fact, the very statement: non-existence exists is nonsensical.
While I was on board with your earlier observation, I think you are taking it too far at this point. Are negations, of themselves, substantive? I doubt it, at least in many/most cases...except for the concept of nothing itself. And it is at this point where one begins to need to define terms. What is meant by "nothing". Is it lack of substance (i.e. material) or is it also lack of concept (idea) as well? I certainly think that for most people, it is the former.
Does saying the emperor has "no clothes", by your definition, mean that he is certainly clothed? Even when he is clearly naked, such that even a child can SEE it?
But at this point, I must speak to a truism regarding all existence...which is that it is precisely what YHWH SAYS IT IS, and it has NO dependence on our reason. This doesn't mean that YHWH is unreasonable. HE and His existence, purpose, and will, by definition, establish reason--i.e. His intention and will IS reason. Some people think "evil" is irrational and that its existence rules out God. In sad and humorous irony, He will rule out THEIR existence for the very reason that they hold to their false reasoning.
I think absence is absence...in other words it is "not there-ness" and unexistence. I mean absent in all contexts, not merely a specific one--as in "not visibly here because it is unseen there". SPEAKING of something is not the same thing as existence. SPEAKING of something's absence does not give it existence...it is acknowledging non-existence.
All that said, I still think that in the context of Gen. 1, there is plenty of case for something other than ex nihilo...thus, I can agree with your first observation and not your second. I think you were right, but for the wrong reason. LOL
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
>>>All that said, I still think that in the context of Gen. 1, there is plenty of case for something other than ex nihilo...
Try "EX hUDATOS"... it's Koine...
2Pe 3:5 For this they are wilfully ignorant of: That the heavens were before, and the earth [DRY LAND] out of water [EX hUDATOS] and through water, consisting by the word of God:
0 -
[:D]Semi OT. When I was 9 or so I learned a useful(?) syllogism:
Nothing is better than heaven.
A doughnut is better than nothing.
Therefore, a doughnut is better than heaven.
Moral: be careful with nothing.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Silver Hawk said:
It makes no sense, No matter whom you are addressing.Super Tramp said:Joshua, I was referring o Silver Hawk here. Not continuing our line of discussion. That is why it doesn't make much sense.
You are incapable of supporting your statements without readers coming to agreement with you that the Bible is God's word and that God can not lie. You have no clue what a philosophical argument is. Try one of these:
- If the Apostle Paul could sin, how do you know he did not lie to Titus when he claimed God could not lie? How can Paul, a mere mortal, vouch for an eternal God's record of honesty?
- If God really could lie, how do you know he wouldn't lie to us about his "inability to lie?" I always doubt the salesman that starts with, "Now I wouldn't lie to you..."
- If God is truly sovereign, why can't he save all lost people since he says it is his will that none perish? According to a Muslim I converse with Allah can tell a lie because his sovereignty frees him from being bound by his own promises. Does that mean the God of the Bible is weaker?
These are the types of questions you can not answer without relying on some measure of faith (trust?) in the Bible being true. If someone is open to questioning the truth of the creation account, why not question Titus 1:3? Who are we to decide which parts of the Bible are lies and which are true. Which parts are fairy-tales and which are not? Josh McDowell correctly stated, "Jesus Christ was either:
- a crazy madman
- a liar and a fraud
- truly the Son of God and God incarnate.
There are a myriad of apologetics resources in Logos to debate these issues with non-believers that won't accept your Bible verses as divinely inspired. There are several Logos resources on the way that show us the rest of the world does not think with the Anglo-Saxon's Western Civilization's version of Crusader Christianity. Were this a theological discussion, I would probably agree with 90% of any poster's views. Philosophically it is wrong to say a "God" can't sin, or lie, or die, or change along the way, or be mistaken. (That is probably why the God of the Bible calls some "vain babblings.")
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
EPISTEMOLOGY for some is "ya get your info from an EPISTLE!"
0 -
Joshua G said:
but I would like to add that there are true impossibilities - even for God. God is only capable of doing everything that is possible.
These would probably spark theological debate but they are so interesting:
- Consider how a Triune God knows the date and hour of the return of Jesus Christ while he also does not know it.
- Consider how an all-knowing God can not remember my sins when I can still remember them.
- Consider how an all-knowing God can repent himself of something (like the making of man or the exodus of Israel.)
- Consider how Christ could be forsaken by the Father in his darkest moment on the cross.
- Consider how an eternal God could truly die and resurrect again from the dead.
- Consider why a God would elevate mere mortals to be joint-heirs and judges of the angels.
None of this makes philosophical sense. But it is all in that precious Bible. [A] Some believe it, some don't. [6]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Super Tramp said:
You are incapable of supporting your statements without readers coming to agreement with you that the Bible is God's word and that God can not lie. You have no clue what a philosophical argument is. Try one of these:
- If the Apostle Paul could sin, how do you know he did not lie to Titus when he claimed God could not lie? How can Paul, a mere mortal, vouch for an eternal God's record of honesty?
[;)]
Super Tramp said:- If God really could lie, how do you know he wouldn't lie to us about his "inability to lie?" I always doubt the salesman that starts with, "Now I wouldn't lie to you..."
I refer readers to my final comment in this post.
Super Tramp said:- If God is truly sovereign, why can't he save all lost people since he says it is his will that none perish? According to a Muslim I converse with Allah can tell a lie because his sovereignty frees him from being bound by his own promises. Does that mean the God of the Bible is weaker?
See above...even though I believe YHWH abides by His promises. He is, however, certainly able to fabricate what we might call "loop-holes"--in many cases, these exist mainly because we simply don't comprehend YHWH's intent when He speaks, even though we think we certainly do. This circumstance can balloon all the way to the reality that we simply don't know God, in the face of (in spite of) assertions about the certainty of the gospel.
Super Tramp said:Philosophically it is wrong to say a "God" can't sin, or lie, or die, or change along the way, or be mistaken.
I think you are likely wrong on this point. What you say might be true if the starting proposition is "God may not exist"...but starting from the premise, which is absolutely just as valid (in fact, is even moreso), that He does exist, can remove some of your philosophical concerns--or, at least I think it can. [:D]
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Super Tramp said:
None of this makes philosophical sense. But it is all in that precious Bible.
Some believe it, some don't. 
Again, in consideration of my final comments in the above post, I think your definition of "philosophical sense" is too limited. Using the definition of "reason" that I spoke of earlier (a couple of posts above or so), I think a philosophy that is biblical is not only sensible, but is ultimately the only sensible one possible. Some relegate that idea to faith, but I personally find it to be eminently reasonable.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
David Paul said:
This circumstance can balloon all the way to the reality that we simply don't know God, in the face of (in spite of) assertions about the certainty of the gospel.
Super Tramp said:Philosophically it is wrong to say a "God" can't sin, or lie, or die, or change along the way, or be mistaken.
I think you are likely wrong on this point. What you say might be true if the starting proposition is "God may not exist"...but starting from the premise, which is absolutely just as valid (in fact, is even moreso), that He does exist, can remove some of your philosophical concerns--or, at least I think it can.
My personal definition of "God" includes attributes of sinlessness, an inability to cease existence, a purveying intimacy with all his creation, the might to create, sustain, and destroy anything, and recreate all over again, and finally, the ability to experience emotion without losing control of his actions.
I am sure you could pick my definition apart. It is the rest of the world's definitions of God that aren't so easy to engage. Greek and Roman gods could commit any sort of sin man could imagine. Hindu deities and other regional tribal gods of indigenous peoples are all self-centered to the hurt of their worshipers. Allah is allowed to lie and the monks in high places tell us there are no absolutes. "Instant Karma is gonna get you" and if it doesn't, the chaos monsters will.
Save me philologists! I would rather be in a theological debate. I have looked to the Philosophers but they can't agree with each other..
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Super Tramp said:
My personal definition of "God" includes...
This may be the source of our main differences.
I would NEVER suppose to "define" God...and even less would I assume to establish a "personal" definition. Why not? Because I am fairly convinced that He will deliberately bring such hubris to ultimate ruin.
He defines Himself...and all I ever do is attempt to understand that "definition", i.e. revelation. All the while I assume that I am missing a significant part of the picture, and for humility's sake (due to my flesh-boundness) also assume that it could be enough to almost totally change my perspective--while also believing that the things He has shown me are sufficient for me to develop a presently satisfactory (while incomplete) insight into Him and His nature and His purpose.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Amen !
0 -
David Paul said:
This may be the source of our main differences.
I would NEVER suppose to "define" God...and even less would I assume to establish a "personal" definition. Why not? Because I am fairly convinced that He will deliberately bring such hubris to ultimate ruin.
This is not a difference between you and me. This is the marked difference between philosophy and theology. That is why earlier I warned against basing our theology on philosophy. I could never define the true and living Almighty God. One thing I can say about Him. If he said it, I believe Him. The burden falls on me to incline my ear unto His words. I may misunderstand if I read too carelessly.
btw: This is an excellent summation: [Y][H]
David Paul said:He defines Himself...and all I ever do is attempt to understand that "definition", i.e. revelation. All the while I assume that I am missing a significant part of the picture, and for humility's sake (due to my flesh-boundness) also assume that it could be enough to almost totally change my perspective--while also believing that the things He has shown me are sufficient for me to develop a presently satisfactory (while incomplete) insight into Him and His nature and His purpose.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Super Tramp said:
I could never define the true and living Almighty God.
[^o)] HHHMMMmmm~~~ [^o)]
Super Tramp said:My personal definition of "God" includes attributes of sinlessness, an inability to cease existence, a purveying intimacy with all his creation, the might to create, sustain, and destroy anything, and recreate all over again, and finally, the ability to experience emotion without losing control of his actions.
0 -
Silent Sam said:
HHHMMMmmm~~~ I bet you could misquote Jesus too.
Ever consider starting your own church?
ओम् is taken but Hmmm is still available. [:D]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Super Tramp said:
This is the marked difference between philosophy and theology. That is why earlier I warned against basing our theology on philosophy.
Without drawing a contrast between myself and you, let me say that I feel, or rather think (i.e. have come to the conclusion) that theology without philosophy, and philosophy without theology, are both doomed to ruin. Strangely, far too many Christians dispell with philosophy, feeling that it is a secular and necessarily godless thing that leads to ruin. And yet sophia--wisdom--is part of the warp and woof of the Holy Spirit. A study of "wisdom" and its Hebrew and Greek counterparts, makes this extremely clear. One who hopes to know YHWH MUST be a philosopher, in the truest sense. Anyone who says, "I don't want/need either philosophy or theology, just give me Jesus", emphatically, by the revelation of YHWH/Yeishuu`a, does not know Him or have his Spirit. 1 John speaks to this idea throughout. This disconnected "just give me Jesus" idea is about as perfect an example of Isa. 29:13 / Mt. 15:8 / Mk. 7:6 as anyone could ever hope to identify. One must be a thoughtful philosopher in order to even be able to "obey the gospel" (1 Pet. 4:17, 2 Thes. 1:8), because not "loving wisdom" means a person is guilty of the first part of Paul's verse--they explicitly do not know God.
ASUS ProArt x570s Creator, AMD R9 5950x, HyperX 64gb 3600 RAM, ASUS Strix RTX 2080 ti
"The Unbelievable Work...believe it or not." Little children...Biblical prophecy is not Christianity's friend.
0 -
Factual statement: In the order to which Thomas Aquinas belonged (the Dominicans), one must complete a degree in philosophy before beginning your theological studies.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Super Tramp said:
I bet you could misquote Jesus too.
Super Tramp said:My personal definition of "God" includes attributes of sinlessness, an inability to cease existence, a purveying intimacy with all his creation, the might to create, sustain, and destroy anything, and recreate all over again, and finally, the ability to experience emotion without losing control of his actions.
Sir, These are your words, posted on this very page, less than one hour apart. How can you possibly attempt to claim that you have been misquoted?Super Tramp said:I could never define the true and living Almighty God.
When you invoke the name of Jesus, in an attempt to divert attention away from this fact, ... Is that just a philosophical statement?
0 -
David Paul said:
philosophy, and philosophy without theology, are both doomed to ruin.
There is the Wisdom of God, and there is the wisdom of men. All wisdom of men will fail you at some point. All three disciplines are based on the thoughts of men. Theology is what men think of God. I am interested in the thoughts of men but the only truth that matters is the truth of God. If you look at the Wikipedia articles for all three disciplines you will see a litany of schools of thought and contradictory theories. Not only must all but one of them be wrong, I maintain that last guy got his wrong too.
None of the rabbis, priests, prophets and kings have accomplished what Jesus has. John 5:39 The scriptures purpose is to lead us to Christ.
The written words will pass away, after all things have come to pass. We do not worship an old scroll, we worship a living God.
Now this is sounding a bit theological. [^o)]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
How many of the Apostles/New Testament writers were educated to the point of being considered a philosopher? (Ro 1:22)MJ. Smith said:Factual statement: In the order to which Thomas Aquinas belonged (the Dominicans), one must complete a degree in philosophy before beginning your theological studies.
Seeker might be a better word. Jer 29:13
0
