The expression "logical possibility" means that a statement (P) is not self-contradictory such that P and ~P.
It is logically possible (not self-contradictory) that a man could have experienced physical birth through a virgin, which occurred by means of the holy spirit. But would such a man still have been perfect (in the relevant sense) and thus qualified to ransom his life for humanity?
One older Witness publication argued that only the Word/Logos (the preeminent Son of God and first creation) was qualified to ransom humanity and meet Satan's challenge against Jehovah's divine sovereignty. The more I think about perfect humans coming from imperfect ones, it seems complex since Job effectively said clean beings do not emanate from unclean ones (Job 14:4). Psalm 49:7-8 indicates that humans could never provide a heavenly deliverer: the savior had to come from on high. All the "sent" passages in John might also suggest that God provided a divine being in human form to save us and sanctify his name. See Hebrews 10:5-6. At the end of the day, I not only reckon that the virgin birth is logically possible, but I place my faith in God's wondrous miracle.
86 comments:
Mark 16:15 - "into the world"
John 17:18
I'm not sure what the problem is supposed to be. You'll have to spell it out for me, but one defines the world and sending by the context of utterance or usage. We cannot satisfactorily define either term in the abstract. Analogical language also does not entail that relationships exist in a 1:1 correspondence. The very word analogy implies that A and B are like and unlike one another (e.g., Juliet: the sun). Christ and his Father are one just as the disciples are one. However, that means the oneness of each party implies similarity and dissimilarity.
Yet getting back to the Johannine sending passages, God sends his Son into the world (John 3:16), but that language does not preclude the Logos existing prior to the world.
See Larry Hurtado's comments about Jesus' preexistence here: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/jesus-pre-existence-etc-responding-to-questions/
Where is the focus - the origin or the destination?
Numbers 16:28
Isaiah 6:8
Judges 6:8
http://thelostbooks.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Prayer-of-Joseph.pdf
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/prayerjoseph.html
I can't answer your question because it's difficult to understand the reference point. Think I get what you're saying, but not sure. The Prayer of Joseph material is a little clearer; I've posted about the Prayer of Joseph before. See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2018/03/prayer-of-joseph-images-of-fragment.html
Remember that Philo speaks of the Logos as firstborn and the Apocrypha refers to wisdom being the first created.
https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1842/2656/Philo%2520%2526%2520Early%2520Christianity.doc
The prologue is the Johannine passage that often has been thought to offer the strongest possibilities for a connection to Philo. But even here, beyond the coincidental (and very different) use of “Logos” by both authors, there is in fact nothing specific for which Philo is essential to understand it. The virtual consensus among scholars is that the Johannine prologue simply shows an independent appropriation and distinctive development of Jewish traditions about Wisdom/Word, and that Philo represents another, and very distinguishable appropriation.
What about the dss?
https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/40/1/166/1640725?redirectedFrom=PDF
https://ehrmanblog.org/divine-wisdom-for-members/
My personal view of Philo and the Johannine Prologue is that while they have surface similarities, I do not believe that John personally used Philo to shape/write the Prologue. My comment about Philo actually pertained to the language of Colossians 1:15 which refers to Christ as the firstborn of all creation. Philo likewise mentions the Logos was firstborn and calls the Logos, theos. But I do not believe John interacted with Philo's writings. On the other hand, scholars have contended that the DSS have some connection with the Fourth Gospel.
There are too many unknowns to be dogmatic about how wisdom is portrayed in the Hebrew Bible. Did the ancient Jews think wisdom was a divine hypostasis? Who really knows, but see the Proverbs commentary by Michael Fox.
Wisdom is grammatically feminine, but that does not mean wisdom is ontologically feminine nor was thought to be such by ancient Judaism. Compare 1 Corinthians (first chapter) where Paul speaks of Christ as the wisdom and power of God.
Here's a quote passed on to me by a friend:
"As the Gospel of John does, Revelation associates Christ with wisdom (3:14) and with the word of God (19:13). These terms are used quite differently, however, in Revelation. The risen Jesus is associated with wisdom in 3:14 as 'the beginning of the creation of God.' This epithet clearly implies preexistence, but nothing in the work requires the inference that he is eternal. Rather, the implication seems to be that he is God's first creature." (King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature, by Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins), p. 211
1 Corinthians 1 seems to be on the whole, arguing against using the term wisdom.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm10Wblgei8
Do not know this particular DR. biases but I welcome your comment on his conclusion as I have a similar estimation that 1 Colossians 1:15 is summed up in 1 Colossians 1:18 (what is being talked about in less poetic terms).
Note that the prayer of Joseph may be a Jewish (non christian) first century document. It would would then be just demonstrating the kinds of language used for prominent people.
https://www.sefaria.org/Targum_Neofiti.1?lang=bi
This has an interesting introduction - "In the beginning and in great wisdom, God created and finished the heavens and the earth."
1 Peter 1:20 is also significant.
In 1 Corinthians, Paul specifically refers to Christ as the power and wisdom of God. So how does that discourage using the term wisdom? Furthermore, see 1 Cor. 2:6-8.
As Jacob Neusner expressed matters, there were many Judaisms in ancient times--not just one. Jews had a variety of thought among themselves, so we cannot make sweeping judgments based on one document, as you know. Whatever firstborn means in relation to Christ, other factors point to his preexistence and that includes the sending language of the Fourth Gospel and Romans 8:32.
Firstborn can mean "preeminence" or it can be related to one's birth. Compare Gen. 4:4; 49:3-4; Deut. 21:17.
1 Peter 1:20 is significant as you mention. But it does not rule out preexistence and the verse nicely comports with Gen. 3:15.
Also see https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/preexistence-wisdom-and-the-son-of-man/3E801B2CC0A6EB6334E4515952418AF8
More detail to the "general" Jewish background found here:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZE4Ihjv0Wc
firstborn of all creation and firstborn from the dead are related phrases, but they don't communicate the same idea, as indicated by the qualifying language of 1:15. And to learn more about Revelation 3:14, see BDAG under arche.
For the record, I'm not arguing for the Trinity, but for Christ's preexistence. Two different things as Collins observes. Preexistence does not conflict with Jewish monotheism/monolatry. Denying preexistence of the Johannine passages results in nonsense. For example, John 8:23. Christ is the manna sent from heaven and existed in God's form.
Hamerton-Kelly addresses some of the very points that Smith is raising. See the link above.
What is "gods form"?
See http://www.thegoodbookblog.com/2012/sep/11/in-the-form-of-god-phil-26/
The phrase ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ presents the first crux in our passage. Μορφή (here dat. sg. fem.) is best trs. “form” (most EVV; BDAG 659c). The NIV’s “in very nature God” (“truly God” [CEV]; “God” [NLT]; “possessed of the very nature of God” [H-M 114]) constitutes an interpretation that is neither well supported by the usage of the term in HGk. nor particularly suitable to the surrounding context. Although the term can be used substantially (Plato Phaed. 103e; Resp. 381c; Aristotle Met. 11.1060b; Phys. 2.1.193b; Plut. Quaest. plat. 1003b; Def. orac. 429a; Philo Spec. 1.327–28), there is no semantic component in μορφή that necessarily involves a corresponding “nature” (NIV) or ontology (pace Fee 204; H-M 114). The great majority of instances where μορφή and its cognates occur in HGk. mean simply “outward appearance” (Dan Fabricatore, Form of God, Form of a Servant: An Examination of the Greek Noun μορφή in Philippians 2:6-7 [University Press of America, 2009]; “form, outward appearance, shape” [BDAG 659c]; that “which may be perceived by the senses” [J. Behm, TDNT 4:745-46]).
The comments from the linked blog have been written by J. Hellerman. There are many different interpretations, but morphe seems to mean His "outward appearance" in this context.
And yet Jesus must have taken them from the world to send them back into the world. John 17:18.
1 Corinthians 2:5 so the wisdom is not wisdom is it?
https://youtu.be/1XdUTVeFzNA
John 17:18 is speaking of Christ's disciples. Christ did take them from the world alienated from Jehovah (not from the world of humankind) and he sent them into the world by commissioning them to be truth-bearers (i.e., witnesses). See John 18:36ff.
1 Corinthians 2:5 does not negate Christ being God's wisdom, nor does it negate Paul preaching/speaking about wisdom. He made it clear in 1 Cor. 2:6-8 that the wisdom he spoke was not human wisdom, but divine and associated with God's "deep things." How could divine wisdom not be wisdom? Remember that James also spoke of the wisdom from above. Not all wisdom originates with humans.
Concerning the video about John 8:23, I don't believe every claim made by just anyone. Peter warned about those who twist scriptures to their own destruction; let's recognize nonsense for what it is.
I never said the world in this case refers to "the earth." But it doesn't refer to doctrine either. As many humans, as many opinions.
This article looks at both sides: https://brill.com/abstract/journals/hbth/36/2/article-p129_2.xml?crawler=true&mimetype=application%2Fpdf
This is why the dating of John is so critical - what if john is earlier than one of the synoptics?
For Sophia:-
Romans 1 verse found 1 match
1 Corinthians 15 verses found 17 matches
2 Corinthians 1 verse found 1 match
Ephesians 3 verses found 3 matches
Colossians 6 verses found 6 matches
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Colossians#Authorship
So we have one book with an exceptionally high usage of the term & most of it derogatory. Paul defines what he is going to call wisdom as gods power. Is this not perhaps a letter in response to Jewish wisdom philosophy?
Ok, I have read through "Does the Gospel of John Have a High Christology?" & he is missing something significant relating to John 18:6. Jesus entering Jerusalem as "son of David" - a king. Of course these Jewish solders would be in turmoil about what was happening at the time and what they were being told to do. Philippians 2:9-11 language has its roots in David history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_and_titles_of_Jesus_in_the_New_Testament#Son_of_David
Yes Jesus was "sent" but so was Moses. Where was Moses sent from - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Sinai .
Morphe as his "outward appearance" - What Adam had the ability to be, an imager.
Manna from heaven or manna from sky?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4433119/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323556419_Biodiversity_of_fungi_in_hot_desert_sands
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230577497_Fungi_in_hot_and_cold_deserts_with_particular_reference_to_microcolonal_fungi
https://www.kcet.org/redefine/hard-summer-rains-bring-desert-mushrooms
https://www.azlca.com/uploads/documents/desert-soils-mycorh.pdf
There are more like this.
They just weight for the right conditions to occur.
The rain came from heaven but the fungi from the ground by morning?
Bare in mind that the Dabar could have had considerably more humidity than today.
How many people and animals were defecating on the land?
May not change your point but I thought I should point this out.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6vx06h
So much more to learn :)
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Could_mushrooms_survive_in_the_wild_on_animal_stools
http://simonsdiscoveries.com/fungi-as-proper-food/
https://www.core77.com/posts/58219/Overnight-Time-Lapses-of-Mushrooms-Growing-Freakishly-Fast
1) I see Paul's language about God's wisdom and power as related, but distinct. In other words, he distinguishes divine wisdom from divine power on the conceptual level. Moreover, he juxtaposes divine wisdom with human wisdom as he only deprecates the latter.
2) Why was 1 Corinthians written? That's a big question, but I think the short answer is that it's an "occasional epistle." He's addressing specific problems in the Corinthians ecclesia/ecclesiae.
3) I would not quibble with the view that Phil. 2:9-11 reflects Davidic history. However, the concession still does not entail that Philippians only deals with the earthly Jesus. The language used by Paul has to be read in context. He is making a contrast (likely) between Christ and Adam and he's reflecting on what the Son of God sacrificed in order to perform God's will. Additionally, he uniquely existed in God's form which differed from anyone else.
4) Not only was Christ sent, but he claimed his origins were from above and from another world; Christ said that he once existed with the Father and he would return there. John is pretty explicit about these points in numerous places (John 14 and 17). John 17:3 would never be said of Moses or any other regular human.
5) What's the difference between saying Christ came from heaven (as figurative manna) or that he came from the sky? Compare Acts 1:9-11.
6) When I mentioned "manna," I was speaking figuratively about Christ being that manna (bread) from heaven. Did not have literal manna in mind.
7) The two acts of sending for Christ and Moses were not the same. Moses was sent to specific people like Pharaoh, whereas Christ was sent to the entire world although he existed with God, in God's form and was "a god" (NWT) in his own right.
On the issue of preexistence, I've mentioned Hamerton-Kelly's book. See also https://www.jstor.org/stable/3263269?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Problem of Preexistence in Philippians 2 by Talbert
Another article:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/004056399705800205?journalCode=tsja
Interesting observation on gjohn 17. Nowhere in the other gospels does Jesus call himself "Jesus Christ". The narrator of Matthew does but not Jesus himself.
No mention of Psalms 2:7 in the sage article?
If logos had any kind of beginning then it is automatically tied to a temporal nature.
From Coffman's Commentary on John 17:3:
Jesus Christ ... Jesus' third person reference to himself in this compound title is the basis of all kinds of wild speculations to the effect that these are John's words, not those of our Lord; but without doubt these are the true words of Jesus (see under John 17:2). From what other source could the almost universal use of "Jesus Christ" have derived? Christ would declare himself "Christ" that very night (Mark 14:62), a title purposely avoided until then. What better way was there of instructing the apostles than in this prayer uttered in the third person (partially), and in which the expression "Jesus Christ" was used for the first time on earth?
Westcott paid respect to this alleged difficulty by making this verse a parenthesis, saying, "St. John has given parenthetically ... the substance of what the Lord said."[10] Saunders thought this prayer includes "Both the direct words of the Saviour ... (and) the writer's own reflections."[11] We feel, however, that all such interpretations should be rejected, not merely because of the good sense in receiving them as Jesus' actual words, but also because many great scholars regard the grounds for taking them thus as totally adequate. To quote only one of them, Hovey said:
He was referring to himself in the third person, as being, along with the Father, the object of that knowledge which is eternal life. In this solemn hour, it is by no means inconceivable that he should have applied to himself, once for all, the great compound name, which the apostles were to use so often ... We adhere, therefore, to the view that this is the language of Christ himself.[12]
Another verse that occurred to me to show Jesus' uniqueness is Luke 1:35. What other man was born of a virgin and called "holy," God's Son.
To whom does Psalm 2:7 apply? How did the early Christians apply that psalm?
Yes, I believe the Logos began to exist in time. So did the universe. :)
Coffman's commentary is inadequate. As he points out, Jesus does declare himself the Messiah but this is not a name label, not to mention the number of times he is called "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ".
Also the commentators bias is clearly high Christology.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43048481?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
In relation to point 5 - 2 Kings 2 to the heaven or to the sky?
ἀνελήφθη is of note in Acts 1:11 and 2 kings 2 LXX.
For Acts 1:9-11 there is no difference in the Hebrew term which should be translated "sky" in all instances but in English heaven (religious sense) and sky are quite different.
Why manufacture difficulties where none exist? Who said Messiah had to be a name label, and what's the problem if it's not? Christ Jesus or Jesus Christ? Writers do sometimes alternate expressions for stylistic and literary reasons. Usage may also differ from writer to writer. I see no major problem with the alternating expressions.
Coffman's bias does not matter in this case. The main reason I quoted him was to show that Jesus' 3rd-person reference is not a major difficulty. Many other writers could be invoked and that includes C.K. Barrett, who wrote a weighty tome about the Fourth Gospel. Numerous commentators note that the 3rd-person reference does not mean the words are not from Jesus. But to each his own.
Did you read the Psalm 2 article yet? What bearing does it have on the current discussion?
Many translations use heaven in 2 Kings, and I have no problem with that rendering. why couldn't either one be correct?
"Now when the Lord was about to take Elijah up to heaven by a whirlwind, Elijah and Elisha were on their way from Gilgal" (2 Kings 2:1).
Heaven doesn't have to mean the residence/home of God. After all, the birds fly in midheaven like the angel of Revelation does.
"And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, 'Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.'" (Acts 1:9-11 ESV)
Yes, I agree that ἀνελήφθη is noteworthy in both accounts.
Why would Jesus need to say his own name? Why would one ever say it that way - that's why no other account gives it. Simple.
Yes, others would define that way.
Well, who do you take psalms 2 to refer to? I am not sure what you were trying to get at?
"Now when the Lord was about to take Elijah up to heaven by a whirlwind, Elijah and Elisha were on their way from Gilgal" (2 Kings 2:1). - no, its into the sky by a whirlwind to land on the ground somewhere else where 10 years later he could write a letter.
"birds fly in midheaven like the angel of Revelation does" in Greek but do we have an equivalent to MIDheaven in hebrew?
I've got to run, but just quickly:
People today sometimes speak in the third person, so we cannot rule out him saying it. Either way, the words could still be genuine and unique.
I think Psalm 2 ultimately refers to the messiah.
Heaven can include what I think you're calling the sky. It does not have to mean God's residence.
For informational purposes only, not that I agree with Trinitarian belief: https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/52/52-3/JETS%2052-3%20499-518%20Malone.pdf
Compare https://books.google.com/books?id=IzfuJOf1JLMC&pg=PA295&lpg=PA295&dq=john+17:3+jesus+speaking+in+the+third+person&source=bl&ots=zP71HtpMPD&sig=ACfU3U07ENEVDimEO6HV9mNMlkNlq-pMRA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwis46f_0vDgAhXwkOAKHRr6AM84ChDoATAGegQIAhAB#v=onepage&q=john%2017%3A3%20jesus%20speaking%20in%20the%20third%20person&f=false
That is page 295.
Here's another work you might find interesting: https://books.google.com/books?id=Tn_DDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&dq=john+17:3+jesus+speaking+in+the+third+person&source=bl&ots=SXqSbYuffK&sig=ACfU3U0Ed18EmvYIeqO-dtlha2fqvgVr6g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwigmIj70_DgAhVFTd8KHe2jDAI4FBDoATABegQIBBAB#v=onepage&q=john%2017%3A3%20jesus%20speaking%20in%20the%20third%20person&f=false
"I Jehovah" - so, how many times did Jehovah speak directly that were recorded?
These articles are fundamentally flawed at best.
"Jehovah rained fire and sulphur from Jehovah…"is narration.
They only confirm that which they set out to disprove.
As in the modern language in a court of law we may have "I ???? ???? Promise to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth" but this is formualistic .
How many other characters in the Bible supposedly use this? They mention Solomon but this is also narration.
For the expression, midheaven in Hebrew, see Deuteronomy 4:11. I can see criticizing the journal article, but the book about third-person references tried to wrestle with many texts. You also have not explained how John 17:3 undermines or subverts Christ's preexistence. Besides, I had other examples in mind than what you mention.
Translating the heart of the sky as mid heaven is very debatable.
What is an example you had in mind?
John 17:4&5 contrast earth with world.
"Jesus Christ" appears in John 1:17. On examples, consider John 19:35; 21:24; Some also point to Thucydides calling himself "Thucydides. See History of the Peloponnesian War 1.1.1 and 4.104.4 or Julius Caesar who write about himself in the third person.
https://oatd.org/oatd/record?record=%22handle%5C%3A10392%2F4954%22&q=*%3A*
I'll talk about Deut 4:11 separately. To my knowledge, no NT writer uses kosmos to mean "earth," but what lesson should we draw from the contrast made in John 17:4-5?
You may balk as midheaven for Deut 4:11, but what about heart of the earth referring to midearth?
For Deut. 4:11, see https://www.amyjosefaariel.com/words-of-torah-blog/2018/7/23/the-heart-of-heaven
I think I understand what is being said here but birds do not fly in the heart of the sky. The heart of the sky is not an altitude. A volcano punches a hole through the sky when it vents. "Heart of the earth" might mean CENTRE of the earth in some languages. The heart of a matter is the central or pivotal point. If one was to treat it as central altitude then we live in the center heaven but I am not compelled to think that way.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_in_Judaism
We've long departed from the subject's thread, but I don't think the Bible writers would've been bothered by language like "birds fly in midair" or midheaven. See Rev. 19:17. We can't impose our presuppositions on biblical language.
Furthermore, "heart of the earth" is metaphorical in my estimation like "heart of the earth." Let's not confuse our thinking with ancient Hebrew conceptions.
I checked the ICC Deuteronomy Commentary and what it has to say about Deut. 4:11. It states that "heart" is used figuratively in 4:11 "for centre, midst"
See Exodus 15:8; Ezekiel 27:27; 2 Sam. 18:14. Compare Jonah 2:3.
Here's some more info:
And I saw, and I heard an eagle flying in mid-heaven, saying with a great voice, Woe, woe, woe, for them that dwell on the earth by reason of the other voices of the three angels who are yet to sound (viii. 13). Attention ought to be paid to the fact that the cry uttered in mid-heaven, and thus penetrating penetrating to the most distant corners of the earth, proceeds from an eagle, and not, as in the Authorised Version, from an "angel;" and the eagle is certainly referred to for the purpose of adding fresh terror to the scene.
Milligan, William . The Expositor's Bible: The Book of Revelation (Kindle Locations 1977-1979). Kindle Edition.
Milligan, William . The Expositor's Bible: The Book of Revelation (Kindle Locations 1975-1977). Kindle Edition.
Concerning Revelation 19:17:
The angel beheld at the beginning of this scene is the first of the three forming the second group of that series of seven parts of which the triumphing Conqueror was the centre. He stood in the sun, which is to be thought of as in the zenith of its daily path, in order that he may be seen and heard by all. It is to the birds that fly in mid-heaven that he calls; that is, to those strong and fierce birds of prey, such as the eagle and the vulture, which fly in the highest regions of the atmosphere. His cry is that they shall come to the great supper of God, that they may feast upon the flesh of all the enemies of the Lamb.
Milligan, William . The Expositor's Bible: The Book of Revelation (Kindle Locations 4367-4368). Kindle Edition.
Milligan, William . The Expositor's Bible: The Book of Revelation (Kindle Locations 4364-4367). Kindle Edition.
Richard E. Friedman's translation of Deut. 4:11: "And you came forward and stood below the mountain, and the mountain was burning in fire to the heart of the skies: darkness, cloud, and nimbus."
See Ezekiel 27:4 27:25
https://www.academia.edu/36803564/The_Center_of_the_Earth_in_Ancient_Thought.pdf
The article regarding the center of the earth is interesting and erudite, but does not deal with Jewish views of the "heart" or center. I want to read the article more slowly next time because of how detailed it is, but I've found that "heart of the earth" is understood in various ways by Bible scholars, but one possibility is that the Son of Man was in Sheol for three days/nights.
Yes, I have no problems with that understanding but I have put this foreward regarding mountains or volcanos where this type of language is used. Basically I think that the usage in revelation &Deuteronomy have different meanings.
Maybe they do have different meanings, but there could be some overlap. Craig Koester (Anchor Bible Commentary on Revelation) submits that Rev. 14:6 possibly could mean something akin to "in midair" or "overhead."
A couple of thoughts from Craig Keener that pertain to Revelation 8:13:
"In any case the eagle ascends to 'midair,' to the sun's zenith, 'so that the entire world may hear his cry.'"
In the footnote to this paragraph, he adds:
"Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 159. This seems more likely (cf. 19:17) than assuming the middle of various layers of heaven (2 En. 17:1)."
I see that some have associated Deut 4:11 with Exodus 19:18.
That would suggest something very different to revelation.
https://www.gotquestions.org/kingdom-heaven-God.html
I can see how Deut 4:11 would be related to Exodus 19:18 although I don't think Exodus mentions "heaven." While I'm not going to post this reference either, the book about how the Hebrews conceived the world oes into heaven, Deut. 4:11, etc. We've discussed that book before.
Deut 5:23 has to be included. The word מִתּ֣וֹךְ is also translated as centre or middle part.
Deut 5:23 also links to Exodus 3:2.
Post a Comment