Lucifer and the Ancient Earth

[chair]

Perhaps you could refer to...

You keep avoiding answering my very simple question:
How did the Israelites in the time of Moses understand Genesis?

If you didn't understand the question, I'll explain:
They did not have later prophets to refer to. No Isaiah. No Ezekiel. No Psalms. They certainly did not have Mark or Matthew or letters from Paul.

So what did they think the first chapter in Genesis meant?

 

[Derf]

He is only an adversary to the extent we allow him to be.

He is certainly not an adversary to God unless you think of a mosquito as an adversary.

But then God's Spirit is a repellent.

Why are you focusing on a minor issue?

You seemed to think it important that we not see Satan as God's adversary. Certainly Satan's impact is greater the more we listen to him, and lessened when we resist him. But again, our reaction to Satan doesn't redefine him as an adversary.

We are adversaries, too, when we go against God's commands. That's why we needed to be reconciled through Jesus' blood.

 

[jamie]

That's why we needed to be reconciled through Jesus' blood.

It has already been done. We don't need a redo.

 

[beameup]

You keep avoiding answering my very simple question:
How did the Israelites in the time of Moses understand Genesis?

If you didn't understand the question, I'll explain:
They did not have later prophets to refer to. No Isaiah. No Ezekiel. No Psalms. They certainly did not have Mark or Matthew or letters from Paul.

So what did they think the first chapter in Genesis meant?

They had Job to "refer to". They believed in a literal Satan, the nachash, the deceiver man. They knew that both good and evil existed prior to man being created.

They also knew, from vs. 26, that God was a plural:
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness

 

[chair]

They had Job to "refer to". They believed in a literal Satan, the nachash, the deceiver man. They knew that both good and evil existed prior to man being created.

They also knew, from vs. 26, that God was a plural:
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness

No, they didn't have Job. You are grasping at straws.

The Bible was written to be understood, not as a secret code-book to be decoded over centuries.

 

[beameup]

No, they didn't have Job. You are grasping at straws.

The Bible was written to be understood, not as a secret code-book to be decoded over centuries.

So you are claiming that absolutely no documents existed that pre-date Moses?
Job belongs to the very early patriarch days. - FACT!
How about some of the documents found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Book of Jasher? Book of Enoch? Book of Gad the Seer? Book of Nathan the Prophet?
BTW, there is no "secret code" concerning the plurality of God found in Genesis 1... it's glaringly evident even to the most uneducated reader.

 

[chair]

So you are claiming that absolutely no documents existed that pre-date Moses?
Job belongs to the very early patriarch days. - FACT!

Proof? Evidence?

H

ow about some of the documents found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Book of Jasher? Book of Enoch? Book of Gad the Seer? Book of Nathan the Prophet?

What about them?

BTW, there is no "secret code" concerning the plurality of God found in Genesis 1... it's glaringly evident even to the most uneducated reader.

BTW, there is no secret code in Deuteronomy 6:4

 

[beameup]

Proof? Evidence?

H
What about them?

BTW, there is no secret code in Deuteronomy 6:4

We are talking about Genesis here, specifically Genesis 1.
You said it was written so that a child could understand it.
Well, it clearly states that the creator God is a plurality.
I'm sure that a "child" can understand that.

So, you simply "dismiss" all other sources as if "Moses" was the only writer of truth
and Ruach Elohim had nothing to do with the other "writings" - which most consider
either "sacred" or of significant value. Sounds like your thinking is "inside the box".

 

[chair]

We are talking about Genesis here, specifically Genesis 1.
You said it was written so that a child could understand it.

No, that is not what I said.

Well, it clearly states that the creator God is a plurality.
I'm sure that a "child" can understand that.

So, you simply "dismiss" all other sources as if "Moses" was the only writer of truth
and Ruach Elohim had nothing to do with the other "writings" - which most consider
either "sacred" or of significant value. Sounds like your thinking is "inside the box".

This is an interesting question. Who is God talking to? There are several possibilities, but I don't see how any of them proves that God is a Trinity.

Now, getting back to our current question. It remains this: How would an Israelite in the time of Moses read the story in genesis? Would he think that God created a perfect world on day one, and Satan ruined it? Or that day one was just a step in the creation?

BTW, you still owe me proof on the Israelites knowing the Book of Job.

 

[beameup]

This is an interesting question. Who is God talking to? There are several possibilities, but I don't see how any of them proves that God is a Trinity.

There you go again, inserting a word (trinity) that doesn't exist in the Bible.
The Hebrew is perfectly clear: God is a PLURALITY.

Now, getting back to our current question. It remains this: How would an Israelite in the time of Moses read the story in genesis? Would he think that God created a perfect world on day one, and Satan ruined it? Or that day one was just a step in the creation?

BTW, you still owe me proof on the Israelites knowing the Book of Job.

You are assuming that the Hebrews were illiterate and that no writings existed until Moses conjured up the Hebrew (paleo-Hebrew). Is that some form of extreme ethnocentricity of Jews?
So far, you've produced no independent commentary on what "an Israelite in the time of Moses" would have "read the story of Moses". Maybe they were all illiterate Egyptian slaves.

Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink (at His feet) - Exodus 24:9-11

 

[chair]

...
You are assuming that the Hebrews were illiterate and that no writings existed until Moses conjured up the Hebrew (paleo-Hebrew). ...

No. I have done no such thing. My comments regarded which books were written and available back then, not about who could read. You keep putting words into my mouth. Go back and read my posts again. You are wasting my time with this.

 

[jamie]

BTW, there is no secret code in Deuteronomy 6:4

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!" (Deuteronomy 6:4)

One what?

We must look at other scriptures to answer the question of one what.

It is written: "And the LORD said, 'Indeed the people are one'" (Genesis 11:6)

Do you agree the people were one?

 

[jamie]

BTW, you still owe me proof on the Israelites knowing the Book of Job.

Can anyone prove Job was not a son of Issachar?

"The sons of Issachar were Tola, Puvah, Job, and Shimron." (Genesis 46:13)

 

[Derf]

It has already been done. We don't need a redo.

Thus the past tense of the verb "need" in my post.

Thus the need for an understanding of meanings of words and grammar to have meaningful discussion.

 

[chair]

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!" (Deuteronomy 6:4)

One what?

We must look at other scriptures to answer the question of one what.

It is written: "And the LORD said, 'Indeed the people are one'" (Genesis 11:6)

Do you agree the people were one?

One is a number. One. 1. It is not complicated.

 

[Derf]

Can anyone prove Job was not a son of Issachar?

"The sons of Issachar were Tola, Puvah, Job, and Shimron." (Genesis 46:13)

The biggest problem is that no sons were listed for Job when they all went down into Egypt, despite all the other male children being listed, including Judah's dead ones.

Now, it could be that none had been born yet, but that would then put the land of Uz in Egypt. I'm not sure how much sense that makes.

It could also be that it was between families. I.e., that it was after the 10 children had died, but before the 10 replacement children were born, but then why weren't the dead ones mentioned like Judah's dead sons.

I think it makes more sense that it was from a former time, maybe back closer to where Abraham came from:

[Gen 22:21] 21 The oldest was named Uz, the next oldest was Buz, followed by Kemuel (the ancestor of the Arameans),

Since Job was from the land of Uz (an Uzite, probably), and one of his friends was a Buzite, they were likely offspring from Nahor, and therefore Job was likely a cousin of Rebekah. That could explain also how the story came to the Israelites--through communication between Rebekah and her family, or possibly Jacob learned of the story when he went there and married Leah and Rachel.

 

[jamie]

One is a number. One. 1. It is not complicated.

Are you saying the people were not one?

If so, why?

Why was the writer of Genesis mistaken?

 

[jamie]

If echad can only mean "one" what is the Hebrew word for first?

Would the number one be the first number?

Maybe the scripture should read Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is first!

 

[jamie]

The biggest problem is that no sons were listed for Job when they all went down into Egypt

How does this prove Job was not a son of Issachar?

However, we know Job was a parable. (Job 27:1 KJV and Job 29:1 KJV)

I suspect the parable was told to Moses at Mount Sinai.

 

[6days]

Perhaps you would like to comment on*Genesis 1:2

It's pretty straight forward but here it is. "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."*

Continue reading and see how God formed land features, then filled the earth with life over the course of the next six days.

and*Jeremiah 4:23

Jeremiah was prophesying destruction and compared it the earth before God formed and filled it.*


It isn't difficult to understand. It only becomes convoluted for those who want to insert secular ideas of deep time into God's Word...and, for those who reject Gen. 1:1. The first verse of the Bible tells us that this was the beginning of creation. Some people seem to reject what God tells us and preach that it was only a different beginning. Some people seem to reject what God tells us and preach that it was only a re-creation. *