• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

God's attitude towards science and progress

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Clete wrote..."No, God's action does NOT define right and wrong (except as a sort of figure of speech). If what you said were correct, it would be meaningless to call God good. God would be amoral. God could, in your view, commit the murder that others on TOL have accused Him of and murder would become righteous by virtue of God's action. On the contrary, murder would not become good, God would have become evil."

This is quite laughable, Clete speaking of "good" and "evil" when Clete has consistently been unable to define good and evil apart from God's will. And God's will derives from God's nature.

And if God wants to commit whatever action He wants to commit, such as sending she bears to tear up children teasing His prophet Elisha, then I am fine with that, since it is obviously God's will, and therefore good.

2Ki 2:23
And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
And he went from thence to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria.

How is it possible that people can say such things? Vowels just directly accused God of murder! Earlier he said he'd be just fine with it if God were a Nazi! Why are any of us reading a word he types?

Good is NOT defined by God's action! On the contrary, God acts rightly! God is righteous because He acts righteously. If there is something that God is doing that doesn't seem right to you then guess who's wrong? Here's a hint - IT ISN'T GOD! But vowels couldn't tell you that! He has no basis whatsoever to know whether God has even told us the truth about Himself in the first place or that God hasn't at that moment decided to alter the definition of "good".

The words "good" and "just" and "righteous" all have meaning. They are very nearly synonymous, especially in this context, but they are all words connected to concepts. The meaning of these words are not so plastic that they can include murder and rape and kidnapping and theft and adultery and whatever other act of unrighteousness you can think of. And make no mistake about it, that is precisely what Vowels here wants you to believe. His blasphemous doctrine would have you accept that God could have been His opposite and that right and wrong would have been reversed by virtue of that fact. But I'm here to tell you that, not only is it blasphemous, it is impossible - rationally - conceptually impossible. God is not a magician who can just make anything random thing work, no matter how self-contradictory or irrational. If God were evil He would be as harmful and destructive as anyone else. We learn from God's own mouth that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and what's more, He was applying that principle to Himself! Jesus Himself was telling us that what Vowels wants us to believe wouldn't work. God is not capable of going to a place that doesn't exist. He is not capable of making round cubes or flat sides spheres. Nor is God capable of any other irrational thing, including making good evil or evil good. I am not saying that God won't do it because He doesn't want to. I am saying that He couldn't do it even if He wanted to. It cannot be done - period. To do it would be not to do it. It's irrational nonsense.

And, by the way, Vowels claims that I'm laughable because I've been unable to define good and evil apart from God's will when I have unequivocally done exactly that. So he's a liar on top of being a blasphemous heretic. What a surprise!

Lastly, since it so specifically fits this discussion, I wanted to post the main body of the short essay I wrote on this subject a few years ago. I know it won't have any impact on Vowels but perhaps someone else reading the thread will get something worthwhile out of it.

Enjoy.....

Our Moral God

The question of God's morality might, to some, seem a ridiculous question. To some, the idea that God might not be moral is so ludicrous a thought that it would be downright blasphemous to even utter it aloud. After all, they say, if God is amoral (i.e. non-moral) then there can be no standard of right and wrong. But to those who take such a position, it would come as quite a surprise to discover that there are at least as many, if not more, who think it an equally blasphemous thought to suggest that God is moral. After all, God is not subject to anyone or anything, including a moral standard - He is the standard! Right?

What is the source of such confusion? Well, there are many possible ways to answer that question, the most obvious of which has to do with the defining of terms and explaining in more detail what is meant when one says that God is, or is not, moral. But I don't believe that the problem can really be solved by a mere analysis of the semantics involved. This is not an issue of sophistry but rather it is a problem of philosophy. There is a more fundamentally philosophical issue involved here that I believe the vast majority of people on both sides of this issue do not understand nor do they even have any inkling of the issue's existence for that matter. The purpose of this short essay is to bring this issue to the attention of those on both sides of this issue and to explain how the God we serve is indeed moral but not because He follows or is subject to a set of rules nor because His nature defines morality, which is meaningless, but because God is rational.

In John chapter one we are taught not simply that Jesus is God, nor simply that God became a man, but that God the Son is the Logos of God. The New King James renders the passage this way...

John1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.​

In this passage, everywhere you see the phrase, "the Word" the Greek word being used is "Logos". It is important to understand what this Greek word means because the use of "Word" as an English translation just doesn't convey what this passage is teaching. Logos conveys the idea of communication or more specifically, discourse and more specifically than that, rational discourse and/or rational argument. It is the word from which we get the suffix "-ology", as in Biology, Theology, Technology, Climatology, Cosmology, etc. So, the study of living things is "Biology" and the processes in a living creature are said to be biological. Notice bio-LOGICAL. To apply logic to the processes in living things, and thus to understand them, is biology, it is the logos of life. This is the meaning conveyed by "Logos".

So now, with this better understanding of the Greek, lets look at this passage again...

John 1:1 In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And Logic became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.​

Now, there are some who object to such a translation thinking it improper to equate the living God with some abstract concept such as logic. But it should be noted that those who make such an objection never object to God being equated with the abstract concept of "Word", nor are they typically capable of offering any explanation as to what exactly it means to say "the Word was God". In other words, people who object on the grounds of referring to God as an abstraction, typically have no real problem with abstractions so long as the abstraction being used makes no sense.
This is, however, quite a new idea to most of those reading this and so let me just cite a couple of others who have used and acknowledged the validity of such a translation. Not that doing so helps to prove anything other than that this teaching is not unique to, nor can it's genesis be attributed to me. Indeed, this idea is as old as Christianity. As evidence of both its veracity and its antiquity, I offer the following quotations, the likes of which there are many...

"...this translation––may not only sound strange to devout ears, it may even sound obnoxious and offensive. But the shock only measures the devout person's distance from the language and thought of the Greek New Testament. Why it is offensive to call Christ Logic, when it does not offend to call him a word, is hard to explain. But such is often the case. Even Augustine, because he insisted that God is truth, has been subjected to the anti–intellectualistic accusation of "reducing" God to a proposition. At any rate, the strong intellectualism of the word Logos is seen in its several possible translations: to wit, computation, (financial) accounts, esteem, proportion and (mathematical) ratio, explanation, theory or argument, principle or law, reason, formula, debate, narrative, speech, deliberation, discussion, oracle, sentence, and wisdom.
Any translation of John 1:1 that obscures this emphasis on mind or reason is a bad translation. And if anyone complains that the idea of ratio or debate obscures the personality of the second person of the Trinity, he should alter his concept of personality. In the beginning, then, was Logic." - Gordon H. Clark; Against The World. The Trinity Review, 1978-1988. [God And Logic, Gordon H. Clark, p. 52-56] John W. Robbins, Editor.​

"For not only among the Greeks did reason (Logos) prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among the Barbarians were they condemned by Reason (or the Word, the Logos) Himself, who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ;" Justin Martyr: The First Apology of Justin Chapter V​

Logos n. < Gr, a word: see Logic 1 Gr. Philos. reason, thought of as constituting the controlling principle of the universe and as being manifested by speech 2 Christian Theol. the eternal thought or word of God, made incarnate in Jesus Christ: John 1 - Webster's Dictionary​

Okay, so what's the point? God is Logic, Logic is God - so what? Well, let's suppose someone, for whatever reason (uh hem), rejects the Bible, Jesus Christ and the whole concept of God, a true atheist attempts to think through the issues of life and does so in such a way so as to stay as true to the principles of logic and sound reason is he possibly can. If, the Living God is Logic, what conclusions then should this person come too? Should they not be at least very similar to the teachings which are found in Scripture? If such an atheist existed and made such an attempt to use reason to formulate his philosophy of life, would he not be using God to formulate it, even if by accident and in ignorance?

Now, bearing that in mind I want to look at John 1 again. This time verse 4...

John 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.​

I find it interesting that the issue of life is brought up in the context of the Logos of God. It interests me because if one were to attempt to contemplate a rational basis for morality, life would have to be a necessary starting point because it is only to the living that issues of morality apply or matter. Ayn Rand, just the sort of atheist to which I've been referring, put it this way...
"...the first question is "Does man need values at all—and why?" According to Rand, "it is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible," and, "the fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do." Rand writes: "there is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action... It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death..." The survival of the organism is the ultimate value to which all of the organism's activities are aimed, the end served by all of its lesser values." Ayn Rand (1964). The Virtue of Selfishness (paperback ed.). p. 13 & 18 New York: Signet.​

Rand also said,

"Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive he must act and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch––or build a cyclotron––without a knowledge of his aim and the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think." Rand, Ayn (1992) [1957]. Atlas Shrugged (35th anniversary ed.). p. 1012 New York: Dutton​

Now, according to Rand, rationality is the primary virtue in ethics (i.e. morality). For rand ethics is...

"the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action." Rand, Ayn (1964). The Virtue of Selfishness (paperback ed.). p. 25 New York: Signet.​

All of which, if God is Logic, is entirely consistent with the common Christian teaching that morality is derived from and defined by God's nature. Which, by the way, is not to say that Ayn Rand was a godly person, nor that her philosophical conclusions were all correct. On the contrary, her rejection of the existence of God led to a great many errors, some of which are disastrous and grievously wrong. But, nevertheless, to the degree she stayed true to reason, her conclusions remained close to the truth, which means, by definition, that they remained close to God and His truth as taught in the pages of Scripture.

Rand's quintessential statement on morality is this ...

"Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil." Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged​

Now, since we now know that God is Reason, what could an atheist say that would be any more in line with the teachings of Scripture than that!?

I submit that in fact there is nothing an atheist or anyone else could say that would be more in line with the teaching a Scripture and that in fact we can find the answer to the confusion surrounding the morality of God in the fact the God is Logic. Morality is not simply defined by God's character as many Christians suppose, but rather that which is moral is so because it is rational, which, if you are following the line of thinking in this essay properly, you'll understand is the equivalent of saying that what is moral is so because it is God like. To say that God is moral, is not to say that God has a list of rules He must follow but simply that God is Life and that He is consistent with Himself and therefore acts in way which is proper to Life (i.e. He acts morally). Thus, to say that God is moral is to say that God is rational. An amoral (non-moral) God would be non-rational and therefore non-personal, non-relational, non-thinking, non-living, non-real!

God is real, therefore God is rational, therefore God is moral!

Clete Pfeiffer
3/24/2012
 

iouae

Well-known member
Clete has explained why God is good.
Now I am going to try to explain why God is good.

The word "good" comes from the old English word for "God". The two words are almost synonymous.

If God were evil, and had, for instance, the nature of Satan, would He have created such a pretty universe and pretty world? Satan wants to kill, destroy and enslave - Satan is not constructive enough to create a universe even if he had the power.

If God were Satan, would he give humans the freedom to choose him? No! Satan would possess people, which is what he does wherever he gets the chance, and he binds them, or limits them. So there would be no freedom to choose, only possession and demon oppression. People would be miserable, and driven crazy by evil thoughts going round and round in their minds, until people would do what demon possessed pigs did - they would commit mass suicide by running off a cliff and into the sea, or would kill themselves by whatever means, to escape the torment in their own minds.

If God were Satan, there would be no light, no beauty, no colour, no delicious tastes and wonderful fragrances. There would be no sense of community, no altruism. It would be every man for themselves. Instead, we see community, family, society, altruism, folks doing kindnesses for other folks all the time for no pay or reward because they are made in the image of God. That is why mankind is like no other animal - we like to teach, and to help birds which fall out of nests, just because we cannot help ourselves. There is no man so fallen he does not like friendship and community and the warmth of human kindness, even if they cannot show it.

If God were Satan, there would be no sharing eternal life with others. Others, if Satan bothered to create them, would be there to man his army of warriors, to either kill one another for Satan's amusement, or to make war with the opposition, because Satan is paranoid about being dethroned.

And Satan loves being worshiped and the centre of attention. Unlike God who stays invisible and in the background, trying to help us where possible, Satan would be visible, in a temple, desiring worship, demanding respect, countenancing no opposition, ruling like a tyrant. There would be no peace. It would be like living in a Nazi death camp, never knowing when some arbitrary Satanic henchman is going to usher one into the gas chamber.

If God were Satan, the sand would be sharp glass to cut the feet, the air would smell of sulphur, the skies would be grey, the weather would be violent, the water would be sewerage, every animal would bite and sting, every morsel would burn and tear the throat, the temperature would be super hot or cold, and the future expectation would be hopeless. There would be nothing to live for. There would be no relationships, no love, only suspicion, hatred, greed, anger, violence and torture. There would be no grace, and our torment and misery would be his delight.

Instead of a bit of trouble 0.1% of the time and enjoying good 99.9% of the time like most of us do, we would be rotting and festering, and tormented and lonely 99.9% of the time. Satanic rule would not last long before all were wiped out by him.

So I look at the beauty and extent of the heavens and I see a lavish God. I see every creature, whether they know Him or not, vibrantly going about their business of survival. Its a beautiful sight. It can only come from a beautiful God.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Clete has explained why God is good.
Now I am going to try to explain why God is good.

The word "good" comes from the old English word for "God". The two words are almost synonymous.

If God were evil, and had, for instance, the nature of Satan, would He have created such a pretty universe and pretty world? Satan wants to kill, destroy and enslave - Satan is not constructive enough to create a universe even if he had the power.

If God were Satan, would he give humans the freedom to choose him? No! Satan would possess people, which is what he does wherever he gets the chance, and he binds them, or limits them. So there would be no freedom to choose, only possession and demon oppression. People would be miserable, and driven crazy by evil thoughts going round and round in their minds, until people would do what demon possessed pigs did - they would commit mass suicide by running off a cliff and into the sea, or would kill themselves by whatever means, to escape the torment in their own minds.

If God were Satan, there would be no light, no beauty, no colour, no delicious tastes and wonderful fragrances. There would be no sense of community, no altruism. It would be every man for themselves. Instead, we see community, family, society, altruism, folks doing kindnesses for other folks all the time for no pay or reward because they are made in the image of God. That is why mankind is like no other animal - we like to teach, and to help birds which fall out of nests, just because we cannot help ourselves. There is no man so fallen he does not like friendship and community and the warmth of human kindness, even if they cannot show it.

If God were Satan, there would be no sharing eternal life with others. Others, if Satan bothered to create them, would be there to man his army of warriors, to either kill one another for Satan's amusement, or to make war with the opposition, because Satan is paranoid about being dethroned.

And Satan loves being worshiped and the centre of attention. Unlike God who stays invisible and in the background, trying to help us where possible, Satan would be visible, in a temple, desiring worship, demanding respect, countenancing no opposition, ruling like a tyrant. There would be no peace. It would be like living in a Nazi death camp, never knowing when some arbitrary Satanic henchman is going to usher one into the gas chamber.

If God were Satan, the sand would be sharp glass to cut the feet, the air would smell of sulphur, the skies would be grey, the weather would be violent, the water would be sewerage, every animal would bite and sting, every morsel would burn and tear the throat, the temperature would be super hot or cold, and the future expectation would be hopeless. There would be nothing to live for. There would be no relationships, no love, only suspicion, hatred, greed, anger, violence and torture. There would be no grace, and our torment and misery would be his delight.

Instead of a bit of trouble 0.1% of the time and enjoying good 99.9% of the time like most of us do, we would be rotting and festering, and tormented and lonely 99.9% of the time. Satanic rule would not last long before all were wiped out by him.

So I look at the beauty and extent of the heavens and I see a lavish God. I see every creature, whether they know Him or not, vibrantly going about their business of survival. Its a beautiful sight. It can only come from a beautiful God.

So was this you conceding my point or are you incapable of seeing how you've done that?
 

iouae

Well-known member
But it should be noted that those who make such an objection never object to God being equated with the abstract concept of "Word", nor are they typically capable of offering any explanation as to what exactly it means to say "the Word was God". In other words, people who object on the grounds of referring to God as an abstraction, typically have no real problem with abstractions so long as the abstraction being used makes no sense.

Clete, not to disagree with what you wrote about logic, here is what I believe regarding the "Word".

I believe Christ is called the "Word" or the "Word of the Lord" because Christ was the spokesman for the Father.
I believe wherever the phrase "The word of the Lord came to so-and-so..." is used, it means "Jesus came to so-and-so...".
Likewise wherever the phrase "The angel of the Lord came to so-and-so..." is used, it mean "Jesus came to so-and-so..."

Whenever Jesus came to old testament saints he would speak for the Father, or on behalf of the Father. Angel simply means "messenger". The "Word" brings a word from the Father.
 

iouae

Well-known member
This is how I believe the OT should read. I have replaced "the word of the LORD came " with "Jesus came ".
In Hebrew "the word of the LORD" is "dabar YHWH" which I believe is just the OT name for Jesus before He was incarnate.

Gen 15:1
After these things Jesus came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

Gen 15:4
And, behold, Jesus came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.

2Sa 7:4
And it came to pass that night, that Jesus came unto Nathan, saying,

2Sa 24:11
For when David was up in the morning, Jesus came unto the prophet Gad, David's seer, saying,

1Ki 6:11
And Jesus came to Solomon, saying,

1Ki 13:20
And it came to pass, as they sat at the table, that Jesus came unto the prophet that brought him back:

1Ki 16:1
Then Jesus came to Jehu the son of Hanani against Baasha, saying,

1Ki 17:2
And Jesus came unto him, saying,

1Ki 17:8
And Jesus came unto him, saying,

1Ki 18:1
And it came to pass after many days, that Jesus came to Elijah in the third year, saying, Go, shew thyself unto Ahab; and I will send rain upon the earth.

1Ki 18:31
And Elijah took twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, unto whom Jesus came , saying, Israel shall be thy name:

1Ki 19:9
And he came thither unto a cave, and lodged there; and, behold, Jesus came to him, and he said unto him, What doest thou here, Elijah?

1Ki 21:17
And Jesus came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying,

1Ki 21:28
And Jesus came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying,

2Ki 20:4
And it came to pass, afore Isaiah was gone out into the middle court, that Jesus came to him, saying,

1Ch 22:8
But Jesus came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight.

2Ch 11:2
But Jesus came to Shemaiah the man of God, saying,

2Ch 12:7
And when the LORD saw that they humbled themselves, Jesus came to Shemaiah, saying, They have humbled themselves; therefore I will not destroy them, but I will grant them some deliverance; and my wrath shall not be poured out upon Jerusalem by the hand of Shishak.

Jer 1:2
To whom Jesus came in the days of Josiah the son of Amon king of Judah, in the thirteenth year of his reign.

Jer 1:4
Then Jesus came unto me, saying,

Jer 1:11
Moreover Jesus came unto me, saying, Jeremiah, what seest thou? And I said, I see a rod of an almond tree.

Jer 1:13
And Jesus came unto me the second time, saying, What seest thou? And I said, I see a seething pot; and the face thereof is toward the north.

Jer 2:1
Moreover Jesus came to me, saying,

Jer 13:3
And Jesus came unto me the second time, saying,

Jer 13:8
Then Jesus came unto me, saying,

Jer 16:1
Jesus came also unto me, saying,

Jer 18:5
Then Jesus came to me, saying,

Jer 24:4
Again Jesus came unto me, saying,

Jer 28:12
Then Jesus came unto Jeremiah the prophet, after that Hananiah the prophet had broken the yoke from off the neck of the prophet Jeremiah, saying,

Jer 32:6
And Jeremiah said, Jesus came unto me, saying,

Jer 33:1
Moreover Jesus came unto Jeremiah the second time, while he was yet shut up in the court of the prison, saying,

Jer 33:19
And Jesus came unto Jeremiah, saying,

Jer 33:23
Moreover Jesus came to Jeremiah, saying,

Jer 34:12
Therefore Jesus came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,

Jer 36:27
Then Jesus came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying,

Jer 39:15
Now Jesus came unto Jeremiah, while he was shut up in the court of the prison, saying,

Jer 42:7
And it came to pass after ten days, that Jesus came unto Jeremiah.

Eze 1:3
Jesus came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand of the LORD was there upon him.

Eze 3:16
And it came to pass at the end of seven days, that Jesus came unto me, saying,

Eze 6:1
And Jesus came unto me, saying,

Eze 7:1
Moreover Jesus came unto me, saying,

Eze 11:14
Again Jesus came unto me, saying,

Eze 12:17
Moreover Jesus came to me, saying,

Eze 12:21
And Jesus came unto me, saying,

Eze 12:26
Again Jesus came to me, saying,

Eze 13:1
And Jesus came unto me, saying,

Eze 14:2
And Jesus came unto me, saying,

Eze 14:12
Jesus came again to me, saying,

Eze 15:1
And Jesus came unto me, saying,

Eze 16:1
Again Jesus came unto me, saying,
 

daqq

Well-known member
This is how I believe the OT should read. I have replaced "the word of the LORD came " with "Jesus came ".
In Hebrew "the word of the LORD" is "dabar YHWH" which I believe is just the OT name for Jesus before He was incarnate.

Gen 15:1
After these things Jesus came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

Gen 15:4
And, behold, Jesus came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.

2Sa 7:4
And it came to pass that night, that Jesus came unto Nathan, saying,

2Sa 24:11
For when David was up in the morning, Jesus came unto the prophet Gad, David's seer, saying,

1Ki 6:11
And Jesus came to Solomon, saying,

1Ki 13:20
And it came to pass, as they sat at the table, that Jesus came unto the prophet that brought him back:

1Ki 16:1
Then Jesus came to Jehu the son of Hanani against Baasha, saying,

1Ki 17:2
And Jesus came unto him, saying,

1Ki 17:8
And Jesus came unto him, saying,

1Ki 18:1
And it came to pass after many days, that Jesus came to Elijah in the third year, saying, Go, shew thyself unto Ahab; and I will send rain upon the earth.

1Ki 18:31
And Elijah took twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, unto whom Jesus came , saying, Israel shall be thy name:

1Ki 19:9
And he came thither unto a cave, and lodged there; and, behold, Jesus came to him, and he said unto him, What doest thou here, Elijah?

1Ki 21:17
And Jesus came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying,

1Ki 21:28
And Jesus came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying,

2Ki 20:4
And it came to pass, afore Isaiah was gone out into the middle court, that Jesus came to him, saying,

1Ch 22:8
But Jesus came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight.

2Ch 11:2
But Jesus came to Shemaiah the man of God, saying,

2Ch 12:7
And when the LORD saw that they humbled themselves, Jesus came to Shemaiah, saying, They have humbled themselves; therefore I will not destroy them, but I will grant them some deliverance; and my wrath shall not be poured out upon Jerusalem by the hand of Shishak.

Jer 1:2
To whom Jesus came in the days of Josiah the son of Amon king of Judah, in the thirteenth year of his reign.

Jer 1:4
Then Jesus came unto me, saying,

Jer 1:11
Moreover Jesus came unto me, saying, Jeremiah, what seest thou? And I said, I see a rod of an almond tree.

Jer 1:13
And Jesus came unto me the second time, saying, What seest thou? And I said, I see a seething pot; and the face thereof is toward the north.

Jer 2:1
Moreover Jesus came to me, saying,

Jer 13:3
And Jesus came unto me the second time, saying,

Jer 13:8
Then Jesus came unto me, saying,

Jer 16:1
Jesus came also unto me, saying,

Jer 18:5
Then Jesus came to me, saying,

Jer 24:4
Again Jesus came unto me, saying,

Jer 28:12
Then Jesus came unto Jeremiah the prophet, after that Hananiah the prophet had broken the yoke from off the neck of the prophet Jeremiah, saying,

Jer 32:6
And Jeremiah said, Jesus came unto me, saying,

Jer 33:1
Moreover Jesus came unto Jeremiah the second time, while he was yet shut up in the court of the prison, saying,

Jer 33:19
And Jesus came unto Jeremiah, saying,

Jer 33:23
Moreover Jesus came to Jeremiah, saying,

Jer 34:12
Therefore Jesus came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,

Jer 36:27
Then Jesus came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying,

Jer 39:15
Now Jesus came unto Jeremiah, while he was shut up in the court of the prison, saying,

Jer 42:7
And it came to pass after ten days, that Jesus came unto Jeremiah.

Eze 1:3
Jesus came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand of the LORD was there upon him.

Eze 3:16
And it came to pass at the end of seven days, that Jesus came unto me, saying,

Eze 6:1
And Jesus came unto me, saying,

Eze 7:1
Moreover Jesus came unto me, saying,

Eze 11:14
Again Jesus came unto me, saying,

Eze 12:17
Moreover Jesus came to me, saying,

Eze 12:21
And Jesus came unto me, saying,

Eze 12:26
Again Jesus came to me, saying,

Eze 13:1
And Jesus came unto me, saying,

Eze 14:2
And Jesus came unto me, saying,

Eze 14:12
Jesus came again to me, saying,

Eze 15:1
And Jesus came unto me, saying,

Eze 16:1
Again Jesus came unto me, saying,

Lol, that might have been true if indeed you knew His name: but the Teacher himself tells you that he judges no one, (John 12:47,48), and that it is the Master who is the Seeker and the Judge, (the Logos-Word).
 

eleos

New member
Man's knowledge is like a speck of dust (if that) compared to Almighty God. God isn't interested in "things" of man, He can create any "thing" he wants to. He's interested in relationships .... between Him and mankind .... His creation.

Tower of Babel - Babylon

What is the literal meaning of the word “Babylon,” and what is its origin?
“Let us build ... a tower whose top is in the heavens. ... And the Lord said ... let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. ... Therefore its name is called Babel [“confusion”]; because there the Lord confused the language” (Genesis 11:4, 6, 7, 9).

The words “Babel” and “Babylon” mean “confusion.” The name Babylon originated at the Tower of Babel, which was erected after the Flood by defiant pagans who hoped to build it so high that no floodwaters could ever cover it (verse 4). But the Lord confounded their language, and the resultant confusion was so great they were forced to halt construction. They then called the tower “Babel” (Babylon), or “confusion.” Later, in Old Testament days, a worldwide pagan kingdom named Babylon arose; it was an enemy of God’s people, Israel. It embodied rebellion, disobedience, persecution of God’s people, pride, and idolatry (Jeremiah 39:6, 7; 50:29, 31–34; 51:24, 34, 47; Daniel 3 and 5). In Isaiah chapter 14, God uses Babylon as a symbol of Satan because Babylon was so hostile and devastating to God’s work and His people. In the New Testament book of Revelation, the term “Babylon” is used to signify a religious kingdom that is an enemy of God’s spiritual Israel—His church (Revelation 14:8; 16:19).
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
There never was a time I said God was anything but good.

So we are both singing from the same hymn sheet.

The difference is contained in the word "necessary". You believe that God is good but it's just a blind belief. There's no foundation to it. It is not logically necessary, according to your doctrine, for good to mean what it means or for God to be who and what He is. As a result, it doesn't mean anything when you say God is good. It's just lip service. It is this that allows (requires) you to be "okay" with what you perceive to be unjust behavior on God's part. And don't deny that you perceive it that way. You do! Otherwise, there'd be no reason to say that you're okay with it. No one has to say that they're okay with God being kind. No one has to tell someone that they're okay with God blessing someone. No one has to say that they're okay with God punishing Satan or exalting Jesus Christ. No one has to say that they're okay with God being good! The fact that you feel compelled to not only hold to this ridiculous doctrine but to state that you're okay with God doing _______ (fill in the blank) can only be explained by the fact that you think that God is unjust. You think this doctrine of yours is a theological trump card. You think that if you simply redefine the word "righteous" to mean "whatever God does" that it gets you off the hook in regards to understanding why God did __________ (fill in the blank with whatever "horrible thing" God did). I'm here to tell you that it doesn't.

So, no we are not singing from the same hymn book. I don't even think you understand the arguments I've made. In fact, I'm all but certain of it. Your post 183 wouldn't be possible otherwise.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Man's knowledge is like a speck of dust (if that) compared to Almighty God. God isn't interested in "things" of man, He can create any "thing" he wants to. He's interested in relationships .... between Him and mankind .... His creation.

Tower of Babel - Babylon

What is the literal meaning of the word “Babylon,” and what is its origin?
“Let us build ... a tower whose top is in the heavens. ... And the Lord said ... let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. ... Therefore its name is called Babel [“confusion”]; because there the Lord confused the language” (Genesis 11:4, 6, 7, 9).

The words “Babel” and “Babylon” mean “confusion.” The name Babylon originated at the Tower of Babel, which was erected after the Flood by defiant pagans who hoped to build it so high that no floodwaters could ever cover it (verse 4). But the Lord confounded their language, and the resultant confusion was so great they were forced to halt construction. They then called the tower “Babel” (Babylon), or “confusion.” Later, in Old Testament days, a worldwide pagan kingdom named Babylon arose; it was an enemy of God’s people, Israel. It embodied rebellion, disobedience, persecution of God’s people, pride, and idolatry (Jeremiah 39:6, 7; 50:29, 31–34; 51:24, 34, 47; Daniel 3 and 5). In Isaiah chapter 14, God uses Babylon as a symbol of Satan because Babylon was so hostile and devastating to God’s work and His people. In the New Testament book of Revelation, the term “Babylon” is used to signify a religious kingdom that is an enemy of God’s spiritual Israel—His church (Revelation 14:8; 16:19).

So what?
 

iouae

Well-known member
The difference is contained in the word "necessary". You believe that God is good but it's just a blind belief. There's no foundation to it. It is not logically necessary, according to your doctrine, for good to mean what it means or for God to be who and what He is. As a result, it doesn't mean anything when you say God is good. It's just lip service. It is this that allows (requires) you to be "okay" with what you perceive to be unjust behavior on God's part. And don't deny that you perceive it that way. You do! Otherwise, there'd be no reason to say that you're okay with it. No one has to say that they're okay with God being kind. No one has to tell someone that they're okay with God blessing someone. No one has to say that they're okay with God punishing Satan or exalting Jesus Christ. No one has to say that they're okay with God being good! The fact that you feel compelled to not only hold to this ridiculous doctrine but to state that you're okay with God doing _______ (fill in the blank) can only be explained by the fact that you think that God is unjust. You think this doctrine of yours is a theological trump card. You think that if you simply redefine the word "righteous" to mean "whatever God does" that it gets you off the hook in regards to understanding why God did __________ (fill in the blank with whatever "horrible thing" God did). I'm here to tell you that it doesn't.

So, no we are not singing from the same hymn book. I don't even think you understand the arguments I've made. In fact, I'm all but certain of it. Your post 183 wouldn't be possible otherwise.

We both acknowledge that God is good.

You just THINK you have defined "good" to be "God is LOGICAL and RATIONAL", promoting of life.

I think your definition of "good" is completely ILLOGICAL and IRRATIONAL, and very definitely unbiblical. Thinking you can equate "Logos" with "Logical" is absurd.

"Logos" means "Word" because Christ SPOKE everything into existence.
Christ was the "Word of the LORD" who brought the word from the LORD to Old Testament folks.

Christ was God's messenger. "Messenger" = "angel". Thus Christ was also the Angel of the LORD or Father. Christ was the Angel who accompanied Israel in the wilderness. He was that Rock which followed and led them.
 

iouae

Well-known member
Here is how "Logos" or "word" is defined on my software...

The KJV translates Strong's G3056 in the following manner: word (218x), saying (50x), account (8x), speech (8x), Word (Christ) (7x), thing (5x), not translated (2x), miscellaneous (32x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
of speech
a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea
what someone has said
a word
the sayings of God
decree, mandate or order
of the moral precepts given by God
Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets
what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim
discourse
the act of speaking, speech
the faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking
a kind or style of speaking
a continuous speaking discourse - instruction
doctrine, teaching
anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative
matter under discussion, thing spoken of, affair, a matter in dispute, case, suit at law
the thing spoken of or talked about; event, deed
its use as respect to the MIND alone
reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating
account, i.e. regard, consideration
account, i.e. reckoning, score
account, i.e. answer or explanation in reference to judgment
relation, i.e. with whom as judge we stand in relation
reason would
reason, cause, ground
In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world's life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man's salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.


If you think the word "Logos" means "logic" then what you must be able to do is put "logic" in every sentence where this word is used, and see how it works there. I guarantee it will not make sense. Hence you are wrong.

It does not even make sense to say "In the beginning was the logic, and the logic was with God...". This totally demeans Christ to be an attribute of the Father, viz. logic.

It makes more sense to say "In the beginning was the Loquitur, and the Loquitur was with God, and the Loquitur was God.
 

iouae

Well-known member
Let's look at a phrase such as Eze 15:1 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

The Hebrew for "word of the LORD" is "dabar-YHWH".

In the Hebrew there is no "of the" in "word of the LORD". This was added by the translators who thought this made better sense.

What they did not realise is that there is a family of God's called the YHWH family who all carry the surname YHWH. Just like there is a family of Pfeiffer's who all carry the surname Pfeiffer.

But to distinguish Clete Pfeiffer from say Michelle Pfeiffer, they of the Pfeiffer family then have first names such as Clete or Michelle. The KJV translators did not know that "dabar" is a name, and as such it should be translated "Word". "Word" is Jesus Christ's Old Testament name.

The correct translation of Eze 15:1 is "And the Word LORD came unto me, saying".
Thus we are told here that one of the YHWH family came to Ezekiel, and that One was Jesus, known in the OT as the Word God.

Hence it makes perfect sense for John to refer to Jesus as "the Word" since that was His OT name.

Jhn 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
 

iouae

Well-known member
The difference is contained in the word "necessary". You believe that God is good but it's just a blind belief. There's no foundation to it. It is not logically necessary, according to your doctrine, for good to mean what it means or for God to be who and what He is. As a result, it doesn't mean anything when you say God is good. It's just lip service. It is this that allows (requires) you to be "okay" with what you perceive to be unjust behavior on God's part. And don't deny that you perceive it that way. You do!

I really love the way God demonstrates Himself to be, and describes Himself as being in the pages of the Bible.

My definition of "good" as being whatever God says or does - you may not like it, but you will not find another. And I love what He says and does and this wonderful world He created. I can love God quite happily within my definition of "good".

And you are welcome to love your "logical" and "rational" God all you like without my feeling threatened by it, or having a meltdown over your definition.

But a question for you Clete, and your whole swarm of "likers". Does your "good" God torture folks who do not accept Him, forever in hell? Suppose your child, for whatever reason does not accept Jesus. Would you enjoy eternity knowing your child is suffering unspeakable agonies in hell, even as you walk the golden streets? What "logical" and "rational" purpose would eternal punishing of your unsaved loved one serve?
 
Last edited:

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
False charge......

False charge......

He got himself removed from all the threads where he was disrupting. That Urantia stuff belongs in its own thread.

First of all, can any of you show where zeke was referring to, quoting from the Urantia Book (UB), inferring anything "Urantia" on any of the threads you refer to? I find JR's claim and 'tattling' on zeke as a "false charge", and therefore those believing and accepting the charge as supporters of the false allegation.

Therefore your infraction of zeke here is along the same lines.

Zeke might have read some portions of the UB, and has posted in our UB thread, but has never advocated or encouraged any study or pursual of the work, so to assume he is 'Urantia' is ridiculous, and based on ignorance, slight of bias and tendency towards bigotry.

Zeke is travelling his own road towards religious studies and spiritual freedom, as each individual is entitled to his own quest and various tools for the journey....but a UB reader or enthusiast he is currently not. (At best he would agree with some of the universal concepts, values and meanings found in the UB, since most religionists already do, since these are universal).

His path is somewhat eclectic as mine, but draws from his own plethora of teachers, concept-approaches, allegorical nuances and contextual parameters.

My sub-heading here stands.....as the 'labeling' of zeke as somehow being identified with or as 'Urantia' is FALSE. Hence a "false charge". Until someone provides evidence for the 'claim'...this address for a redress stands.

You may address zeke, his points, his quotes of scripture, allegorical interpretation, etc. on its own terms, meaning and context, but false name-labelling and marginalizing thru it is not right.
 
Top