I am using this post to complete the comments on the 20 passages discussed by Lon. I will then make one more post summarising my responses and discussing some of Lon's recent posts and then I will let Lon have the floor to finish up.
In other words Jesus is the prototypical creation; he is what creation is all about. I think that is close to the original context. Another idea is 'epitome'.
In the context eikwn (image - i.e. something seen) is clearly juxtaposed with aoratou (invisible) and any translation that tries to suggest that it merely refers to a being created in God's image is not doing justice to the Greek text.
In both these cases, no other scriptures are necessary to establish this, only a knowledge of the language used.
I don't really understand this distinction. Unless you are aiming at Arians again. There is nothing in Genesis 1:1 that requires the interpretation 'Father only'. Such a thing would presuppose a trinity anyway or at least a trinitarian debate, and of course such a theology should not be read into this passage. Once you have gotten to the final verse in Revelation then perhaps there might be some justification in asserting a trinitarian theology, however Genesis 1:1 is slightly premature.13)
Genesis 1:1 In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth
Interpretation: Only the Father God was involved in creation.
Col 1:16 For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the
earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all
things were created through Him and for Him.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And
the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
Normative interpretation: All of God was involved.
Again, no other texts are necessary to establish this.
The Isaiah passages at least do have a common context and possibly the other passages as well, namely the first temple kingdom. This is therefore a complex set of passages to interpret. On the one hand they occur in different places in Isaiah and so have at least superficially separate contexts, yet they could be viewed together.14,15)
Isaiah 43:24 You have bought Me no sweet cane with money,
Nor have you satisfied Me with the fat of your sacrifices;
But you have burdened Me with your sins,
You have wearied Me with your iniquities.
Interpretation: God can 1) grow tired of us and lose patience and
2)desires sacrificed fat.
Isaiah 1:11 "The multitude of your sacrifices--what are they to me?" says the LORD. "I have more
than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the
blood of bulls and lambs and goats.
Psalm 136:1 Oh, give thanks to the Lord, for He is good! His mercy endures forever.
Isaiah 40:28 Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of
the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom.
Normative interpretation: God does not eat. 1)He doesn't need sacrifices, we do.
2) He does not grow tired it is a figure of speech, not literal.
However, your own analysis does not make sense. In 'Interpretation' you say:
but in 'normative' you say2)desires sacrificed fat.
So you are not comparing like with like. There is no contradiction with God desiring sacrifices and God not needing them.1)He doesn't need sacrifices,
As to 'God does not grow tired', you are clearly special pleading if you say that it is a figure of speech in one verse and not a figure of speech in another verse. The same Hebrew verb is used in both Isaiah 40:28 and 43:24. The only explanation for this is that you don't like what Isaiah 43:24 says.
And the resolution is only what I have said before, just a normal application of context: in ch. 43 it is the people's unrighteousness that is wearisome to God. In ch. 40 the context is God's constancy towards those (of his people) who suffer for him. Surely you would not want to say that God does not get weary of their sins would you? The fact that he gets weary of them is exactly why he judges them.
Answered previously.************************************************** *******
1Sa 15:35 And Samuel never again saw Saul until the day of his death, for Samuel mourned for Saul.
And Jehovah repented that He had made Saul king over Israel.
Interpretation: God changes His mind.
1 Samuel 15:29 the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He
should change His mind.”
Normative Interpretation: "relent" here cannot mean changes His mind, because we are told just 7 verses earlier, God doesn't and nowhere do we find the words "God changed His mind."
The only reference in Acts 4 to David is to his authorship of the psalm, not to the times of King David himself. The psalm is of general application. Compare for example with the very next psalm which begins "A psalm of David, when he fled from Abimelech". No such heading is present in psalm 2. The overall tone of psalm 2 is clearly intended to make a general point, possibly for reading at the enthronement of kings. 'God's anointed' simply means any king (of Israel) whom God chooses.17)
Psa 2:1 Why do the nations rebel?
Why are the countries devising plots that will fail?
Psa 2:2 The kings of the earth form a united front;
the rulers collaborate
against the LORD and his anointed king.
Interpretation: this applies only to King David
Act 4:25 who said by the Holy Spirit through your servant David our forefather,
'Why do the nations rage,
and the peoples plot foolish things?
Act 4:26 The kings of the earth stood together,
and the rulers assembled together,
against the Lord and against his Christ.
Normative Interpretation: Though this prophecy had fulfillment immediately, it was yet messianic and was fullfilled in Christ.
Act 4:28 in order to do whatever Your hand and Your counsel determined before to be done.
God knew what kings and religious leaders would do to Christ before it came to pass.
One thing you may be missing is that psalm 2:1-2, etc, is in the present tense, i.e it is making a general point, as stated above. However, in Acts 4: it is cited from the LXX which gives these verses in the aorist so your translation "Why do the nations rage" is incorrect. The obvious solution from the original context is that psalm 2 is not prophecy but is establishing a general principle (type) that when God is at work, leaders of the nations will get upset and want to take action against him. The believers simply saw that what was happening was a fulfillment of this type.
Both these views are wrong - and indeed simplistic. It is clear that God interacted with people via angels, such as in the case of Mary. He uses wind and fire as his messengers (Heb 1) or thunders from Mount Zaphon. In the Old Testament and in Genesis especially, there is hardly any difference between an angel and God himself. If the omnipresence view were taken to its ultimate conclusion, God would have no need of angels at all.18)
Gen 18:21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of
it, which has come to Me. And if not, I will know.
Interpretation: God does not know current happenings on the earth and is not everywhere.
Psa 33:13 The LORD watches from heaven; he sees all people.
Pro 15:11 Hell and destruction are before Jehovah; even more the hearts of the sons of men.
Col 1:17 He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him.
Normative Interpretation: God sees everywhere at once. Because all things are sustained by Him,
nothing can happen without His notice.
Knowledge itself is also a complex concept. You can know things according to a report of them but you can also experience them for yourself. And reports can differ and be subjective and experiences can change. It may be true that God sees everywhere at once but it is also true that he desires to experience these things as well and he acquires his knowledge by experience, not merely in an aloof manner. And anyone who believes in the incarnation cannot deny this without contradicting themselves very badly. The fact that God was able to go down to Sodom and see for himself what was happening proves, not that God did not know what was happening, but rather the exact opposite that he had the ability to know everything and that nothing in the realms of man was outside his jurisdiction.
Frankly, that's rubbish. "God watched what Adam called the animals" is an awful translation. It's completely incorrect and obviously biased. The fact that you should attempt to pass it off as a good translation is evidence that you are embarassed by what the text plainly states. Nothing in John 21 contradicts this. Before Adam had named all the animals, there was nothing for God to know. Once again, the text is showing that God wants to experience the world and indeed does experience it and is involved in it. Your Platonic presuppositions only make him more aloof than the scripture clearly suggests.19)
Gen 2:19 The LORD God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird
of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called
each living creature, that was its name.
Interpretation: God didn't know what Adam would name the animals.
John 21 God knows all things.
Normative interpretation:"God watched what Adam called the animals" is a good tranlation.
20)I don't know of anyone who has interpreted this passage as meaning that God flies. Psalm 33 is not required in order to understand that this is poetic language.Jer 49:22 Behold, he shall come up and fly as the eagle, and spread his wings over Bozrah: and
at that day shall the heart of the mighty men of Edom be as the heart of a woman in her pangs.
Interpretation: God flies.
Psa 33:13 The LORD watches from heaven; he sees all people.
Normative interpretation: This is a symbolic passage simply trying to convey that God is ever
present and close to His people.