What do you think of this? Lieral or figurative GOE? ’ For if you reject the Adam and Eve tale as literal truth, you reject two central tenets of Christianity: the Fall of Man and human specialness.’
I have long since attempted convince you of anything. You have an attitude toward me that is utterly resistant. When I seemingly respond to your posts, I am doing so for the sake of others some of whom consider what I suggest.
When we examine Hebrews 4:12,13 it is clear that it does not refer to the Bible.
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
Notice in verse 13, the “Word of God” is referred to as “him.” Notice that it is affirmed that "the Word of God is living. Jesus is the living Word of God who “discerns the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”
No living creature is hidden from him. He is the one to whom we must give account.
In what way is Jesus the Word of God? It is He who brought the truth of God to the world, whereas the Jews, who knew only the words of the Old Testament had an incorrect view of God. Jesus stated clearly the true nature of God—that He is kind to ungrateful people and to evil people (Luke 6:35)
1 Like
Just a side note: the original translations did not have the ‘w’ capitalised in ‘word’. By capitalising the ‘w’ we attribute some type of personification to it.
Well, I’m glad that others may benefit from the posts you write to correct my errors, Don! I don’t believe that my attitude toward you is utterly resistant. In fact, I have issued at least four “likes” on comments you have made.
I once stated in a sermon that believers are instructed to love one another but pointed out that we are not specifically directed to like each other. You have made it very clear that you do not like me very much but I sincerely hope you love me, as I do you. Yes, I confess there are aspects of your personality that rub me the wrong way but I fully realize that I am also not perfect.
I do apologize for appearing to be “utterly resistant” to your views. I will not make that mistake again. As Paul writes in Romans 12:18 “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.”
Cheers, Norm - that’s my name, btw.
2 Likes
Across the Hebrew and Greek translations that word as it appears in Psa 119 is fairly broad.
In the Hebrew it appears as דְבָרֶ֑ךָ dābār, i.e., word… meaning — speech, sayings, message, tidings, report, promise, counsel + etc. For example dābār appears 4 times in this verse below and is variously rendered accordingly…
2Chron 33:18 Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, his prayer to his God, and the words of the seers who spoke to him in the name of the Lord God of Israel, indeed they are written in the book of the kings of Israel.
In the LXX it appears as νόμος nomos , i.e., law… meaning — ordinance, custom, practice, or principle — thus at least referring most likely to the codified commandments of Moses, or more broadly for example in Paul’s… “the law of sin and death”. i.e., the principle.
Again… in Heb 4:12 the word λόγος logos need not be personified as again that word itself and be variously applied. Consider just this from the context in view…
Heb 4:12-13 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.
The highlighted above at the start and end of this passage ARE BOTH ὁ λόγος ho logos aka THE WORD.
So take your pick 
Yes, thanks, I’m open to any of those, but just questioned that any of them would refer to the O.T. as we know it, and thus e.g. include the Psalms as in Luke 24. For that would require the unlikely, that Psalm 119 intended to declare that it was also part that Scripture’ collection and thus the ‘word of God.’
Yep… and yet from Jesus’ day looking back said Scriptures were complete, i.e., what we know as the OT. And not to forget… these terms word and law together were even fairly flexible in application and understanding; take for example Jesus in speaking of the law actually quotes Psalms in Jn 10:34. Or then Jesus’ detractors’ appeal to the law quite naturally actually reference back to the prophet Micah.
From the article above I quote:
" No reasonable person nowadays could take Genesis as reporting historical facts. To take but one example, at Genesis 3, 8 we read that Adam and Eve, after having tasted of the forbidden fruit, “heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the Garden . . . .”
Taken literally, this implies that God has feet. But if he has feet was he shod on that day or not? If shod, what was his shoe size? 10 1/2? Obviously, nothing can have feet without having feet of a determinate size! And given that the original parents heard God stomping around, then he had to be fairly large: if God were the size of a flea, he wouldn’t have made any noise. If God were a physical being, why couldn’t he be the size of a flea or a microbe? The answer to these absurdities is the double-barreled denial that God is a physical being and that Genesis is an historical account. I could give further examples."
So, apparently it would be unreasonable of me to assume historicity because that would require God to have a shoe size and it would be absurd for God to have footwear of a determinate size??
And this is the level of Maverick’s reasoning? Was not Jesus considered to be God in human form (by most Christians, possibly Mav as well) and did Jesus have a particular shoe size?
I think Mav shoed do better than that.
That’s a good point. I was thinking along that line as well.
I think the word historical and literal are being co-mingled since God doesn’t have literal feet (presumably) doesn’t necessarily mean there was no literal Adam and Eve in a literal garden.
Jesus referred to them as if they were real people & their descendants. “The blood of Abel cries out.”
I wonder if Jesus was referring to the story, as it was a well-known one, but not necessarily to the actualness of the blood of Abel? I think that’s possible.
I don’t know about the bible timeline because generations are skipped , i believe.
This analogy to a sword is used elsewhere like Eph 6.17 “sword of the spirit which is the word of God” & Rev 1 and 17, so i don’t think in this context it means Jesus. Also in Hebrews , Paul uses descriptions of Jesus like “The Son” or “Christ” but not the “word of God.”
1 Like
Yes, I agree that English translators who capitalize it are emphasizing their interpretation by doing so.
This cannot be determined from the Greek manuscripts since all the letters of the manuscripts were printed in upper case.
Thank you, Norm. Perhaps I misinterpreted your words as antagonism toward me. If so, I regret it.
I agree with you about Christian love. This is the very essence of Christianity. However, I think if we truly love someone, we will not dislike him or her.
They are still emphasizing their interpretation either way. Doesn’t matter if its lower case or upper case. In the Hebrew scriptures it was all lower case I believe. They didn’t change the texts with their own interpolation.
Thank you Norm
I am not sure if I agree or disagree with this.
That seems to hang on definitions of “love” and “like.” In what sense does the call to love our “enemies” (seek their ultimate needs) necessitate that we will like them?
1 Like
[quote=Paidion
I think if we truly love someone, we will not dislike him or her.
[/quote]
Love means wanting the best for someone but “like” is different and can be disconnected to “love.”
Wanting the best for someone doesn’t mean you want to hang with them.
3 Likes