ECT Have You Heard? There is Scripture That Proves Two Different Creations!

[betsy123]

As far as it goes for Gen 1, I have made a deduction based on the fact that God could not have been speaking to anyone other than angels when he said.

How is your "deduction" be based on sound logic?
All you did was make an ASSUMPTION that God "could not have been speaking to anyone other than angels!"


In Genesis 1, the concept of the Triune God is introduced.

Genesis 1

The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (The Father/Creator)

2 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. (Holy Spirit)

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. (The WORD)


Take note that in every creation event, this phrase is used: GOD SAID.


6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.”

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.”

etc..,



God spoke His creation into existence. That is explained in John 1!

You totally ignored John 1:


First of all.....what do you think John means when The Word was made flesh?
Have you ever considered that in your deduction? Who is THE WORD that John refers to?
Then, as you read on - you learn that THE WORD was right there with God at creation event!

If we're going to make assumptions - wouldn't it be logical to assume that God was talking to THE WORD (based on John 1)? That God was referring to Himself and THE WORD, when He used the plural "Let US........?"


John 1

The Word Became Flesh

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 was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life,[a] and the life was the light of men.



Lol. You ignore John 1, and yet you mentioned Romans (which you say give evidence to two creations), which by the way you weren't even specific enough to provide the verse! Was that another "deduction," I wonder?

 

[JudgeRightly]

[.COLOR="#0000CD".]

This blue color is annoying and hard on the eyes. Please find a different color to use.

For someone who never quotes scripture, I find it amazing that you would ask me to do so.

Please point out where Betsy needs to, because so far, I haven't seen anywhere that requires it.

Correction: Betsy HAS been using scripture, and in the appropriate places.

As far as it goes for Gen 1, I have made a deduction based on the fact that God could not have been speaking to anyone other than angels when he said.

Saying it doesn't make it so, but I will consider your argument...

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Sorry, but the very first verse in the Bible uses a plural word for God.

So my question to you, before I continue, is this:

When did God create the angels?

Who else could it be, if not angels? God is one, and there is no other.
Deu_6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
Mar_12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
Gal_3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

I have a few questions:

Question 1: Do you not believe that God is triune (Three Persons (WHOs), one Being (WHAT))? (Which I seem to have answered myself, after reviewing my post before posting: You don't seem to believe that God is triune, but rather unitarian. Please correct this if my guess is incorrect.)

Question 2: Is man made in the image of angels, or in God's own image?

Question 3: Are all angels "humanoid"? In other words, if you were to look at every angel, would they have mostly the same physical features that humans do, or are only some humanoid, while the rest are different shapes?

If you say he was talking to his self,

"His self" is incorrect. It's "Himself."

then you are the one who has no scripture to back it up!

Saying it doesn't make it so. We have plenty of scripture to that effect.

Let me add, God did the creating of mankind but he asked for input from the angels.

This is question begging. You are trying to assert by default that which you need to prove.

Have you noticed how many different races of people there are?

You realize that the idea that man is made up of multiple races comes from darwinistic thinking, right? It certainly doesn't come from the Bible.

Rather, Paul said this:

Spoiler

Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious;for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you:God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising.Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” - Acts 17:22-31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts17:22-31&version=NKJV

If you want my answers you will find I give scriptures

You certainly give plenty of scriptures, but at best they only support your arguments circumstantially. The phrase, "smoke and mirrors" comes to mind.

or a logical response.

Very little of your argument has been logical.

You have not done so!

We have done so previously, and you did not listen.

I do think you are probably an educated person, but taught from those that are only repeating what they have been taught. My hope is that you would start studying the bible for yourself.

That seems rather haughty of you, thinking that you know better than anyone else.

What was it that the proverb said?

Oh yes!

Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall.Better to be of a humble spirit with the lowly, Than to divide the spoil with the proud. - Proverbs 16:18-19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs16:18-19&version=NKJV

 

[betsy123]

For someone who never quotes scripture, I find it amazing that you would ask me to do so.

As far as it goes for Gen 1, I have made a deduction based on the fact that God could not have been speaking to anyone other than angels when he said.

Fact? What fact?

You made an assumption - "God could not have been speaking to anyone" - pure and simple!
John 1 does not agree with you! If there is anyone God could've been speaking to - it was THE WORD!
That's the fact!


Who should we believe? The Scriptures (Book of John), or your "deduction?"

 

[betsy123]

Originally Posted by iamaberean View Post


Gen 1 God created with input from angels.
Gen 2 LORD God alone created Adam from the earth.

INPUT? :shocked:

Angels giving input - as making suggestions - how God should make His creation???

You gotta be kidding me!

 

[betsy123]

Originally Posted by iamaberean View Post


Gen 1 God created with input from angels.
Gen 2 LORD God alone created Adam from the earth.

If angles had a say in the creation of the universe - then, you're saying God took all the credit for Himself?

Lol. Not only did He take all the credit for Himself - but He didn't mention the angels at all!

Don't you see how silly your deduction is? Your deduction had opened up critical questions about God!
Your deduction shows God negatively, besides being in contradiction with other Scriptural verses.

I don't know where you're mining your argument from, but as you can see - it is soundly refuted!

 

[iamaberean]

How is your "deduction" be based on sound logic?
All you did was make an ASSUMPTION that God "could not have been speaking to anyone other than angels!"


In Genesis 1, the concept of the Triune God is introduced.

Genesis 1

The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (The Father/Creator)

2 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. (Holy Spirit)

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. (The WORD)


Take note that in every creation event, this phrase is used: GOD SAID.


6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.”

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.”

etc..,



God spoke His creation into existence. That is explained in John 1!

You totally ignored John 1:


First of all.....what do you think John means when The Word was made flesh?
Have you ever considered that in your deduction? Who is THE WORD that John refers to?
Then, as you read on - you learn that THE WORD was right there with God at creation event!

If we're going to make assumptions - wouldn't it be logical to assume that God was talking to THE WORD (based on John 1)? That God was referring to Himself and THE WORD, when He used the plural "Let US........?"


John 1

The Word Became Flesh

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 was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life,[a] and the life was the light of men.



Lol. You ignore John 1, and yet you mentioned Romans (which you say give evidence to two creations), which by the way you weren't even specific enough to provide the verse! Was that another "deduction," I wonder?

Wow, all this coming from the same person that assumes Gen 1 and Gen 2 are the same creation!

 

[iamaberean]

The New Testament is based on the Receptus, which has serious problems. The most important alteration, or forgery and mistranslation, in the KJV is the forged text of 1John 5:7 which makes the Trinitarian reference and which is not in any ancient manuscript.

The verse at 1John 5:7 occurs only in the Textus Receptus, and hence the King James. It says: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," was a known forgery. It was included in the later writings, because there was no verse in the Bible that supported the concept of the Egyptian triads, which had been incorporated into Roman Christianity. Three is also significant in the ancient earth mother religion, which was evident as a feminine subculture involving nature worship and other forms of naturalism, later identified with witchcraft. So having no biblical basis for the Trinity they forged one.

Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, the Textus Receptus reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5·8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against its authenticity

 

[JudgeRightly]

Wow, all this coming from the same person that assumes Gen 1 and Gen 2 are the same creation!

That's ironic, considering it's coming from someone who assumes that the two speak of two different creations...

 

[JudgeRightly]

[.COLOR="#0000CD".]

Again, Please stop using this color.

The New Testament is based on the Receptus, which has serious problems. The most important alteration, or forgery and mistranslation, in the KJV is the forged text of 1John 5:7 which makes the Trinitarian reference and which is not in any ancient manuscript.

The verse at 1John 5:7 occurs only in the Textus Receptus, and hence the King James. It says: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," was a known forgery. It was included in the later writings, because there was no verse in the Bible that supported the concept of the Egyptian triads, which had been incorporated into Roman Christianity. Three is also significant in the ancient earth mother religion, which was evident as a feminine subculture involving nature worship and other forms of naturalism, later identified with witchcraft. So having no biblical basis for the Trinity they forged one.

Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, the Textus Receptus reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5·8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against its authenticity

[/COLOR]

And?

What's your point? That therefore God is not triune?

There are plenty of other verses in the Bible that show God to be triune. Even if you were correct (and I'm not saying you are or are not), the loss of that verse would in no way disprove the entire doctrine. Why? Because doctrines are not formed on one verse alone.

 

[betsy123]

Wow, all this coming from the same person that assumes Gen 1 and Gen 2 are the same creation!

EH? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[betsy123]

Originally Posted by iamaberean View Post
Wow, all this coming from the same person that assumes Gen 1 and Gen 2 are the same creation!

I'm not assuming anything. I've already explained to you.....but you say you can't see!
I can't help it if you can't see!


You took liberties and made your "deduction" - in other words, you dished out your own opinion!


Show me ROMANS - which in it shows two creation! I'M WAITING!

 

[Stripe]

Show me ROMANS - which in it shows two creation! I'M WAITING!

Me too. :wave:

 

[George Affleck]

The New Testament is based on the Receptus, which has serious problems. The most important alteration, or forgery and mistranslation, in the KJV is the forged text of 1John 5:7 which makes the Trinitarian reference and which is not in any ancient manuscript.

The verse at 1John 5:7 occurs only in the Textus Receptus, and hence the King James. It says: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," was a known forgery. It was included in the later writings, because there was no verse in the Bible that supported the concept of the Egyptian triads, which had been incorporated into Roman Christianity. Three is also significant in the ancient earth mother religion, which was evident as a feminine subculture involving nature worship and other forms of naturalism, later identified with witchcraft. So having no biblical basis for the Trinity they forged one.

Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, the Textus Receptus reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5·8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against its authenticity

Cyprian of Carthage (c. 250 A.D). -- “The Lord says ‘I and the Father are one’ and likewise it iswritten of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one’” (De Unitate Ecclesiae, [On The Unity of the Church], The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of theChurch Fathers Down to A.D.325). Here Cyprian quotes from John 10:30 and 1 John 5:7. Nowhereelse in Scripture do we find the words “and these three are one”. “It is true that Facundus, a 6thcentury African bishop, interpreted Cyprian as referring to the following verse, but, as Scrivener(1883) remarks, it is ‘surely safer and more candid’ to admit that Cyprian read the Johannine comma in his New Testament manuscript ‘than to resort to the explanation of Facundus’” (EdwardHills, p. 210). Leonard Twells adds, “This noble testimony invincibly proves, that the passage nowunder debate, was in approved copies of the third century” (A Critical Examination of the Late NewText and Version of the New Testament, 1731, II, p. 134).

 

[George Affleck]

The New Testament is based on the Receptus, which has serious problems. The most important alteration, or forgery and mistranslation, in the KJV is the forged text of 1John 5:7 which makes the Trinitarian reference and which is not in any ancient manuscript.

The verse at 1John 5:7 occurs only in the Textus Receptus, and hence the King James. It says: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," was a known forgery. It was included in the later writings, because there was no verse in the Bible that supported the concept of the Egyptian triads, which had been incorporated into Roman Christianity. Three is also significant in the ancient earth mother religion, which was evident as a feminine subculture involving nature worship and other forms of naturalism, later identified with witchcraft. So having no biblical basis for the Trinity they forged one.

Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, the Textus Receptus reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5·8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against its authenticity

Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are followed by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar.

Dr. Thomas Holland

 

[betsy123]

Yoooohooo, Iamaberean - where are you?

Are you still looking into Romans?

 

[betsy123]

Try to read whole sentences. Genesis 2:4-5 is much easier to understand that way.

Genesis 2:4-3:24 New King James Version (NKJV)

4 This is the [a]history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.


God had specifically distinguished these type of vegetation - of the FIELD - which means, agricultural! The type of vegetations that need tending.

 

[iamaberean]

Two thousand years ago Philo the Jew (c. 20-10 B.C. to at least A.D. 40) understood about the two events when he wrote:

"And at all events he [Moses, in the tablets of Genesis] desires to show that THE RACES OF MORTALS, and also of all THE IMMORTAL BEINGS, exist according to their appropriate numbers; measuring MORTAL BEINGS [those of the sixth-day creation], as I have said, by the number six, and the blessed and IMMORTAL BEINGS [those descended from Adam] by the number seven. First, therefore, having desisted from the CREATION OF MORTAL CREATURES on the seventh day, He [YEHOVAH God] began the FORMATION OF OTHER and more divine beings [Adam and Eve]" (The Works of Philo, translated by C. D. Yonge. "Allegorical Interpretation, I," II (4-5)).

Philo also posits -- in "Allegorical Interpretation, I" --

"But some may ask, why God thought an earth-born mind [that of Adam], which was wholly devoted to the body, WORTHY OF DIVINE INSPIRATION, and yet did NOT treat the one made after His own idea and image [that of the sixth-day creation] in the same manner" (ibid., XIII (33)).

 

[betsy123]

Two thousand years ago Philo the Jew (c. 20-10 B.C. to at least A.D. 40) understood about the two events when he wrote:

"And at all events he [Moses, in the tablets of Genesis] desires to show that THE RACES OF MORTALS, and also of all THE IMMORTAL BEINGS, exist according to their appropriate numbers; measuring MORTAL BEINGS [those of the sixth-day creation], as I have said, by the number six, and the blessed and IMMORTAL BEINGS [those descended from Adam] by the number seven. First, therefore, having desisted from the CREATION OF MORTAL CREATURES on the seventh day, He [YEHOVAH God] began the FORMATION OF OTHER and more divine beings [Adam and Eve]" (The Works of Philo, translated by C. D. Yonge. "Allegorical Interpretation, I," II (4-5)).

Philo also posits -- in "Allegorical Interpretation, I" --

"But some may ask, why God thought an earth-born mind [that of Adam], which was wholly devoted to the body, WORTHY OF DIVINE INSPIRATION, and yet did NOT treat the one made after His own idea and image [that of the sixth-day creation] in the same manner" (ibid., XIII (33)).

He's a Philosopher!
He has his own take - his own abstract interpretation! That's his opinion.

Philo represents the apex of Jewish-Hellenistic syncretism. His work attempts to combine Plato and Moses into one philosophical system.[18] His ethics were strongly influenced by Aristotelianism and Stoicism, preferring a morality of virtues without passions, such as lust/desire and anger, but with a "common human sympathy".

Philo's allegorical interpretation of scripture allows him to grapple with morally disturbing events and impose a cohesive explanation of stories.

Specifically, Philo interprets the characters of the Bible as aspects of the human being, and the stories of the Bible as episodes from universal human experience.
For example, Adam represents the mind and Eve the senses. Noah represents tranquility, a stage of "relative" (incomplete but progressing) righteousness.

Philo's notion is even more abstract than that of the Monad of Pythagoras or the Good of Plato. Only God’s existence is certain, no appropriate predicates can be conceived

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo

 

[Truster]

Yet another wiki theologian.

 

[betsy123]

Yet another wiki theologian.

Depends.

Did you scroll down and read all the given references?

Anyway......which part of what I've quoted is not true?