John Behr insists that it doesn't mean a sequential beginning, especially in John 1 and its reception, but rather something like "origin," for various reasons I don't find that credible, I mean I do think it also means origin, but I think that the two understandings of arche are there in John 1.
I have not read Behr's comments about John 1:1 or just don't recall them, but most commentators I read link John 1:1 with Genesis 1:1 and assign archer in both verses, a sequential meaning. Of course, they argue that the Logos already existed in the beginning.
I figured you had read it. His treatment of arche is revolutionary for the time. I've also read that Origen might have been the first to link John 1:1 with Genesis 1:1. I think Proverbs 8:22 likewise supports a sequential understanding of arche.
Duncan, since we were discussing arche, I was specifically thinking about the LXX handling of Proverbs 8:22. But I understand that Genesis 1:1 in the Hebrew differs from Proverbs 8:22 in the Hebrew by use or non-use of "be."
From the Tyndale OTC by L. Wilson, concerning Prov. 8:22:
Wisdom then explains that she is the first of God’s ‘way’ (v. 22). The word ‘first’ (rē’šît) has a variety of meanings, ranging from the first in importance (chief) to the first in a sequence (beginning). Since the context is one of the very commencement of creation, and since no rival virtues are mentioned or implied, ‘first’ most likely has a time sense here, and so means ‘beginning’. ‘Way’ (derek), commonly used in Proverbs to mean your fundamental choice through life, here has the related sense of all that you do on this way, and so is usually translated as ‘works’ or ‘deeds’.
"John 1:1–18 is recognized as one of the most influential Christological texts in early Christianity, but the passage’s Christology is inseparably bound to ecclesiology. The Prologue even establishes an “ecclesial narrative script”— an ongoing pattern of resocialization into the community around Jesus or, more negatively, of social re-entrenchment within the “world”—that governs the Gospel’s plot."
Like Bede & since Origen many had an obsession with GJohn. There is definitely new creation in it, that most seemed to completely miss. The word becoming flesh (the body of Christ). That why it becomes "flesh", not "Jesus" or "the son".
His becoming flesh did not make him part of new creation,he became the firstborn of the new creation by rebirth not by birth. Romans1:3NKJV"concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who [a]was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. "
John1:10NIV"He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. " Contrast that with John10:14NIV"“I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep KNOW me—" The new creation KNOWS both the source and the mediator of its creation.
So pre existence is not an assertion???? A forcing of arche to mean temporal as opposed to status as foremost. There are several ways to interpret this in Greek and Hebrew.
I'm not ruling out a usage/use appearing only once, but the intent of my question was to discern why ward would refer to the ecclesia in John 1:14. I supplied Johannine verses where sarx clearly refers to the Son of God's freshly corpus, not to the ecclesia
I understand that some people don't believe preexistence can be extracted from John or Philippians, but the new creation approach seems more foreign to the context of John 1:1ff than preexistence. Either way, we know that arche may denote temporal priority or priority in terms of status. Aristotle uses the word to delineate metaphysical principles that are logically prior to other things. Again, context is key.
The ground does not bear the image or likeness of God so no. Genesis3:22NKJV"Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become LIKE one of Us, to know good and evil..." Is the ground being referred to here as well?
Duncan, I'm trying address the point you brought up earlier, where you seemed to say that John 1:14 is talking about the ecclesia, not Jesus' freshly body. How do the verses you cited back that idea? See also https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-meaning-of-sarx-in-context.html
I've written lots about sarx here. My question to you was to show a verse that supported the claim. I'm still waiting 😀
T. Muraoka (Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, pages 617-618) discusses uses of sarx and their denotations. The whole entry is worth reading but Dan. 2:11 is categorized as sarx denoting human beings.
Is Num. 16:22 limited to the congregation of Israel? That's not how I read it, but I could be mistaken.
Romans 7:5 refers to the fallen flesh. For the passage in 2 Cor. 10:3, compare 2 Corinthians 5:16.
Again, as in ch. 14, Moses and Aaron intercede for the people: they fell on their faces (cf. 12:11–13; 14:13–19). In prayer they address God, here simply as God (’ēl), the generic Semitic name for deity. The reference may be general, rather than using the more specifically Hebrew name Yahweh, in order to emphasize God’s role as creator of everything. This role is seen even more clearly in the appositional phrase: the God of the spirits of all flesh. This title is found only here and at Num. 27:16 in the OT, although it is quite common in the postbiblical literature.52 The clause recognizes not only that God is the creator of all life (as all flesh, kol-bāśār, probably means here),53 but also the sovereign over it all (i.e., with the right of life and death over his own creation). After setting forth God’s right to deal with creation as he sees fit, Moses appeals to God’s mercy and grace (again as in 14:17–20).
See Snaith, p. 159. In various contexts the phrase kol-bāśār can mean all living things (Lev. 17:14; Num. 18:15; etc.); animal life only (Gen. 7:15, 21; 8:17; etc.), or human life only (Deut. 5:26).
Snaith has a commentary in the New Century Bible Commentary Series.
Another thought from G. Gray's Numbers commentary:
The phrase God of the spirits of all flesh, which recurs only in 27:16 and is therefore peculiar to P, betrays the advanced theological standpoint of P. Yahweh is to him far more than the God of Israel; He is the one and only author of all human life, and, as its author, capable of destroying it (cp. Gn. 612ff- P; but so also Gn. 67 722f-Js) : cp. Job 34:14'-, also Ps. 104:29f-. The term "all flesh" (")^2 ^3), characteristic of the later literature, occurs 18 times in P ; see Expos., Sept. 1893 (On Joel), p. 215.
The ground + the spirit of god makes man, this is the US. The details are their in Gen 2:7 (https://biblehub.com/john/20-22.htm - the new creation). Not sure what you are not grasping? Is the spirit of God not the image of God?
The ground does not make anything ,all of the creatures, animals and plants alike were made from the ground and by the spirit of JEHOVAH. Only man is made in the image of God and the the servant being addressed " our image" Duncan this cannot sensibly pertain to the lifeless mindless ground nor the spirit which has no will of its own . What about about genesis3:22 likely addressed to the same servant The NIV reads in part "And the Lord God said, “The man has now become LIKE one of us,..." Is this also referring to the mindless ground?
The phrase image and likeness of God ALWAYS (as in without a single exception) pertains to a living intelligence bearing a mental and moral resemblance to JEHOVAH that permits a filial relationship.
I don't often refer to Heiser, but since no one else has coverd this in detail that I know of, I post- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMlr7ViCDEM
His reference to angels is anachronistic, but I have no problem with a heavenly council as long as you understand that there is no evidence of a "heavenly council" at that time either the council were earthly elements - EN-KI (mighty ground), EN-LIL (mighty wind/breath) etc. BTW to argue against this is going to take some imaginary gymnastics as it is not just a Sumerian concept, it is from many cultures of the near east. Geb & Shu in Egypt. They are of the standard council structure.
Have a look at this silly paper - the reality, no soil life within us then we die. We are the living soil & to it we return. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4267716/#:~:text=Yes.,fine%2C%20for%20a%20few%20days.
Thanks for the links, and I agree there is creation imagery from the very outset of John's Gospel. I would say about NT Wright that I've read many of his works, and I'm pretty sure he does not deny Christ's preexistence. So one can even apply new creation theology to GJohn and still hold to Christ's preexistence. Nevertheless, I still think applying the new creation to GJohn is an ill-suited move. But I have no control over the beliefs of others.
Neither ,where does the scripture say that the ground bears the image of JEHOVAH,Duncan yes after he was created bore the image of God not the earth. Gennesis7:21,22NIV"Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died." Ecclesiastes3:19NIV"Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath c ; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. " So the same breath of life in man's nostrils are also in the nostrils of the subhuman beasts. BTW this spirit is not the Holy Spirit. Can you produce a scripture that says that the Holy Spirit was made in the likeness of God JEHOVAH. "Our Image" clearly denoting more than one person no non person can be in the or likeness of JEHOVAH, Duncan.
Before Man is made at least one other creature must have been in the image (i e a copy)of God JEHOVAH that is why God could invite this one to be his instrument in making man in"Our image" the man was. Not the first creature to bear JEHOVAH'S image.
No, all the gymnastics is coming from your end Duncan no lifeless non person can be said to be a copy JEHOVAH. That is why JEHOVAH made it punishable by death to give worship to any lifeless object. But allowed living exalted servants of his to receive relative honor as his representatives. Daniel2:46NIV"Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell prostrate before Daniel and paid him honor and ordered that an offering and incense be presented to him." As his exalted servant Daniel could serve as a representative of JEHOVAH this kind of honor would not be tolerated of any lifeless object because no lifeless or impersonal object can serve as such a representation not being capable of bearing JEHOVAH'S image.
Duncan, I just want to intervene and say that we've had this "ground/soil discussion before. What I take servant to be arguing, and this is one of my objections, is that the ground was not made in God's image. Yet, God states, "Let US make man in OUR image." How could God utters these words to the ground or soil, even if man is composed of either one?
I read an article back when we talked about this before, which registered objections to this view. Will try to find it.
One paper I have is from Gerhard F. Hasel (The Meaning of Let Us in GN 1:26, pages 61-2):
In Gn 2:7 man is certainly formed from the dust of the ground and becomes a living being through God's breathing the breath of life into him. But why would God wish to invite the earth as, a partner in the work of the creation of man? In the creation story the earth is made and exists in a completely undifferentiated, unpersonalized condition. The view that there is a partnership between God and earth in the creation of man finds no support in the OT or in ancient Near Eastern texts. The idea is actually contradicted in Gn 1:27 where God alone is the Creator of the world. It would be also strange that the earth is spoken of in the third person in vs. 24. These difficulties have rightly led interpreters to reject the theory that the "us" refers to God's address to the earth or earthly elements.
The only person not making sense here is you Duncan. Neither the the ground nor the spirit of JEHOVAH is in the image of GOD the one Jehovah addresses is in the image and likeness of JEHOVAH. So clearly neither the ground nor the spirit can be the one being addressed by JEHOVAH. I don't know how to make it any plainer than that.
I recognize that these discussions can get intense and I'm not blaming anybody, but maybe we all need a rest until a later time respecting this subject. Thanks all.
It is JEHOVAH who is speaking so he must be one of the us ,plus at least another who must be a copy of him. Neither the ground nor the spirit fits. A child should be able to see as much.
Look, the book of Genesis is not that old and it is built on the language that came before, not after and GOD does breath on the land and it comes to life - Genesis 1:11.
Most who write these commentaries have little to no knowledge of the land and peoples relationship to it. If you are going to claim "angels", then you need to show where the anachronism was breathed into existence.
51 comments:
"in the beginning of things". https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/arche
John Behr insists that it doesn't mean a sequential beginning, especially in John 1 and its reception, but rather something like "origin," for various reasons I don't find that credible, I mean I do think it also means origin, but I think that the two understandings of arche are there in John 1.
I have not read Behr's comments about John 1:1 or just don't recall them, but most commentators I read link John 1:1 with Genesis 1:1 and assign archer in both verses, a sequential meaning. Of course, they argue that the Logos already existed in the beginning.
Maybe you've read Origen's analysis of arche, but see http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101501.htm
Many many times, I consider Origen's commentary on John to be one of the finest theological works.
I figured you had read it. His treatment of arche is revolutionary for the time. I've also read that Origen might have been the first to link John 1:1 with Genesis 1:1. I think Proverbs 8:22 likewise supports a sequential understanding of arche.
Prov 8:22 is reshit not bereshit.
Duncan, since we were discussing arche, I was specifically thinking about the LXX handling of Proverbs 8:22. But I understand that Genesis 1:1 in the Hebrew differs from Proverbs 8:22 in the Hebrew by use or non-use of "be."
From the Tyndale OTC by L. Wilson, concerning Prov. 8:22:
Wisdom then explains that she is the first of God’s ‘way’ (v. 22). The word
‘first’ (rē’šît) has a variety of meanings, ranging from the first in importance
(chief) to the first in a sequence (beginning). Since the context is one of the very commencement of creation, and since no rival virtues are mentioned or implied, ‘first’ most likely has a time sense here, and so means ‘beginning’. ‘Way’ (derek), commonly used in Proverbs to mean your fundamental choice through
life, here has the related sense of all that you do on this way, and so is usually translated as ‘works’ or ‘deeds’.
I have a break down of Origen's Logos theology as it's presented in his commentary on John here:
https://musingontheology.wordpress.com/2022/02/19/origens-reading-of-john-11/
which is a part of an essay I wrote in this book (translated to Italian):
https://landeditore.it/landuniversitypress/ildiodellabibbia/
Thanks, my friend.
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/10908/1/Johannine_Theosis_%7C_The_Fourth_Gospel's_Narrative_Ecclesiology_of_Participation_and_Deification.pdf?DDD32+
"John 1:1–18 is recognized as one of the most influential Christological texts in early Christianity, but the passage’s Christology is inseparably bound to ecclesiology. The Prologue even establishes an “ecclesial narrative script”— an ongoing pattern of resocialization into the community around Jesus or, more negatively, of social re-entrenchment within the “world”—that governs the Gospel’s plot."
Like Bede & since Origen many had an obsession with GJohn. There is definitely new creation in it, that most seemed to completely miss. The word becoming flesh (the body of Christ). That why it becomes "flesh", not "Jesus" or "the son".
Genesis1:26NIV"26Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, ..."
Whom is JEHOVAH Addressing in this verse?
His becoming flesh did not make him part of new creation,he became the firstborn of the new creation by rebirth not by birth.
Romans1:3NKJV"concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who [a]was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. "
Duncan, where does sarx as used by NT writers ever refer to the ecclesia (figurative body of Christ)? See John 3:6; 6:51, 54-58; 1 Timothy 3:16.
Moreover, people need to prove that the new creation idea is in John, not merely assert it. But I've said this before.
John1:10NIV"He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. "
Contrast that with
John10:14NIV"“I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep KNOW me—"
The new creation KNOWS
both the source and the mediator of its creation.
Edgar,
σαρκός
https://www.studylight.org/interlinear-study-bible/greek/jeremiah/32-27.html
Does it need to be used in the NT anywhere else, many verses depend on single usage and interpretation drawn from the OT.
Servant,
https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/2-7.htm
The ground (en-ki) is the most probable candidate for the US.
I have already sent this to Edgar.
https://youtu.be/wCIRZur_oJ0
Man is not made from "dust" he is made from living soil.
So pre existence is not an assertion???? A forcing of arche to mean temporal as opposed to status as foremost. There are several ways to interpret this in Greek and Hebrew.
Duncan,
I'm not ruling out a usage/use appearing only once, but the intent of my question was to discern why ward would refer to the ecclesia in John 1:14. I supplied Johannine verses where sarx clearly refers to the Son of God's freshly corpus, not to the ecclesia
Come on Edgar, that's a one sided argument. What about Romans 7:5, 2 Corinthians 10:3.
Numbers 16:22 LXX flesh and the congregation.
Dan 2:11 LXX is also not referring to animals in general.
I understand that some people don't believe preexistence can be extracted from John or Philippians, but the new creation approach seems more foreign to the context of John 1:1ff than preexistence. Either way, we know that arche may denote temporal priority or priority in terms of status. Aristotle uses the word to delineate metaphysical principles that are logically prior to other things. Again, context is key.
The ground does not bear the image or likeness of God so no.
Genesis3:22NKJV"Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become LIKE one of Us, to know good and evil..."
Is the ground being referred to here as well?
Duncan, I'm trying address the point you brought up earlier, where you seemed to say that John 1:14 is talking about the ecclesia, not Jesus' freshly body. How do the verses you cited back that idea? See also https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-meaning-of-sarx-in-context.html
I've written lots about sarx here. My question to you was to show a verse that supported the claim. I'm still waiting 😀
T. Muraoka (Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, pages 617-618) discusses uses of sarx and their denotations. The whole entry is worth reading but Dan. 2:11 is categorized as sarx denoting human beings.
Is Num. 16:22 limited to the congregation of Israel? That's not how I read it, but I could be mistaken.
Romans 7:5 refers to the fallen flesh. For the passage in 2 Cor. 10:3, compare 2 Corinthians 5:16.
NICOT Observations for Num. 16:22:
Again, as in ch. 14, Moses and Aaron intercede for the people: they fell on
their faces (cf. 12:11–13; 14:13–19). In prayer they address God, here simply as God (’ēl), the generic Semitic name for deity. The reference may be general,
rather than using the more specifically Hebrew name Yahweh, in order to
emphasize God’s role as creator of everything. This role is seen even more
clearly in the appositional phrase: the God of the spirits of all flesh. This title is found only here and at Num. 27:16 in the OT, although it is quite common in the postbiblical literature.52 The clause recognizes not only that God is the creator of all life (as all flesh, kol-bāśār, probably means here),53 but also the sovereign over it all (i.e., with the right of life and death over his own creation). After setting forth God’s right to deal with creation as he sees fit, Moses appeals to God’s mercy and grace (again as in 14:17–20).
Footnote 53 from foregoing commentary:
See Snaith, p. 159. In various contexts the phrase kol-bāśār can mean all
living things (Lev. 17:14; Num. 18:15; etc.); animal life only (Gen. 7:15, 21;
8:17; etc.), or human life only (Deut. 5:26).
Snaith has a commentary in the New Century Bible Commentary Series.
Another thought from G. Gray's Numbers commentary:
The phrase God of the spirits of all flesh, which recurs only in 27:16 and is therefore peculiar to P, betrays the advanced theological standpoint of P. Yahweh is to him far more than the God of Israel; He is the one and only author of all human life, and, as its author, capable of destroying it (cp. Gn. 612ff- P; but so also Gn. 67 722f-Js) : cp. Job 34:14'-, also Ps. 104:29f-. The term "all flesh" (")^2 ^3), characteristic of the later literature, occurs 18 times in P
; see Expos., Sept. 1893 (On Joel), p. 215.
Servant,
The ground + the spirit of god makes man, this is the US. The details are their in Gen 2:7 (https://biblehub.com/john/20-22.htm - the new creation). Not sure what you are not grasping? Is the spirit of God not the image of God?
The ground does not make anything ,all of the creatures, animals and plants alike were made from the ground and by the spirit of JEHOVAH. Only man is made in the image of God and the the servant being addressed " our image" Duncan this cannot sensibly pertain to the lifeless mindless ground nor the spirit which has no will of its own .
What about about genesis3:22 likely addressed to the same servant
The NIV reads in part "And the Lord God said, “The man has now become LIKE one of us,..." Is this also referring to the mindless ground?
The phrase image and likeness of God ALWAYS (as in without a single exception) pertains to a living intelligence bearing a mental and moral resemblance to JEHOVAH that permits a filial relationship.
The spirit of JEHOVAH is impersonal,so no the spirit of God is not like God who is very personal.
Servant,
"Duncan this cannot sensibly pertain to the lifeless mindless ground" - you are either arguing from arrogance or ignorance, which is it?
Tell me the scripture where it says that Yehovah breathed in to the animals nostrils with the spirit??? Genesis 4:10, Leviticus 17:13.
Servant as for the rest of your comment - what on earth are you talking about? AFTER man is made he becomes an imager of God.
I don't often refer to Heiser, but since no one else has coverd this in detail that I know of, I post-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMlr7ViCDEM
His reference to angels is anachronistic, but I have no problem with a heavenly council as long as you understand that there is no evidence of a "heavenly council" at that time either the council were earthly elements - EN-KI (mighty ground), EN-LIL (mighty wind/breath) etc. BTW to argue against this is going to take some imaginary gymnastics as it is not just a Sumerian concept, it is from many cultures of the near east. Geb & Shu in Egypt. They are of the standard council structure.
Have a look at this silly paper - the reality, no soil life within us then we die. We are the living soil & to it we return.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4267716/#:~:text=Yes.,fine%2C%20for%20a%20few%20days.
Not also that Jesus breathes spirit AFTER his Resurrection. The word has now become flesh.
John 1:14 does have connection to 1 John 1:1 through ἐθεασάμεθα. "and the hands of us has handled" ?
https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/creation-imagery-in-the-gospel-of-john-9780567664242/
Thanks for the links, and I agree there is creation imagery from the very outset of John's Gospel. I would say about NT Wright that I've read many of his works, and I'm pretty sure he does not deny Christ's preexistence. So one can even apply new creation theology to GJohn and still hold to Christ's preexistence. Nevertheless, I still think applying the new creation to GJohn is an ill-suited move. But I have no control over the beliefs of others.
Neither ,where does the scripture say that the ground bears the image of JEHOVAH,Duncan yes after he was created bore the image of God not the earth.
Gennesis7:21,22NIV"Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died."
Ecclesiastes3:19NIV"Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath c ; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. "
So the same breath of life in man's nostrils are also in the nostrils of the subhuman beasts.
BTW this spirit is not the Holy Spirit. Can you produce a scripture that says that the Holy Spirit was made in the likeness of God JEHOVAH.
"Our Image" clearly denoting more than one person no non person can be in the or likeness of JEHOVAH, Duncan.
Before Man is made at least one other creature must have been in the image (i e a copy)of God JEHOVAH that is why God could invite this one to be his instrument in making man in"Our image" the man was. Not the first creature to bear JEHOVAH'S image.
No, all the gymnastics is coming from your end Duncan no lifeless non person can be said to be a copy JEHOVAH. That is why JEHOVAH made it punishable by death to give worship to any lifeless object. But allowed living exalted servants of his to receive relative honor as his representatives.
Daniel2:46NIV"Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell prostrate before Daniel and paid him honor and ordered that an offering and incense be presented to him."
As his exalted servant Daniel could serve as a representative of JEHOVAH this kind of honor would not be tolerated of any lifeless object because no lifeless or impersonal object can serve as such a representation not being capable of bearing JEHOVAH'S image.
Servant, Sorry but I am no longer playing this game until you can make some sensible comments.
We were talking about the US that created man. Gods spirit with living soil makes man.
And you are just making up STUFF.
Edgar,
https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004413122/BP000036.xml
En-lil disappears this if the finality of agriculture.
Duncan, I just want to intervene and say that we've had this "ground/soil discussion before. What I take servant to be arguing, and this is one of my objections, is that the ground was not made in God's image. Yet, God states, "Let US make man in OUR image." How could God utters these words to the ground or soil, even if man is composed of either one?
I read an article back when we talked about this before, which registered objections to this view. Will try to find it.
One paper I have is from Gerhard F. Hasel (The Meaning of Let Us in GN 1:26, pages 61-2):
In Gn 2:7 man is certainly formed from the dust of the ground and becomes a living being through God's breathing the breath of life into him. But why would God wish to invite the earth as, a partner in the work of the creation of man? In the creation story the earth is made and exists in a completely undifferentiated, unpersonalized condition. The view that there is a partnership between God and earth in the creation of man finds no support in
the OT or in ancient Near Eastern texts. The idea is actually contradicted in Gn 1:27 where God alone is the Creator of the world. It would be also strange that the earth is spoken of in the third person in vs. 24. These difficulties have rightly led interpreters to reject the theory that the "us" refers to God's address to the earth or earthly elements.
The only person not making sense here is you Duncan. Neither the the ground nor the spirit of JEHOVAH is in the image of GOD the one Jehovah addresses is in the image and likeness of JEHOVAH. So clearly neither the ground nor the spirit can be the one being addressed by JEHOVAH. I don't know how to make it any plainer than that.
I recognize that these discussions can get intense and I'm not blaming anybody, but maybe we all need a rest until a later time respecting this subject. Thanks all.
It is JEHOVAH who is speaking so he must be one of the us ,plus at least another who must be a copy of him. Neither the ground nor the spirit fits. A child should be able to see as much.
Look, the book of Genesis is not that old and it is built on the language that came before, not after and GOD does breath on the land and it comes to life - Genesis 1:11.
Most who write these commentaries have little to no knowledge of the land and peoples relationship to it. If you are going to claim "angels", then you need to show where the anachronism was breathed into existence.
Post a Comment