The God of Glory spoke creation into existence

[B Bob]

Thesis: The author of the Bible an d the One telling the story of creation is the God of Eternity, and He He permanently and eternally abides in a temple made without hands, and from His own temple, He spoke creation into existence by lifting up His voice of and from His own bodily form; Jesus Christ


Firstly, ALL scripture is authored by God. All writers wrote the scripture under or through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if the Bible says it, God said it. If God said it, it is true whether we believe it or not.

Jesus said to the seventy : "he who heareth you, hearethh me." This was and is Jesus' attitude toward all of the scripture. Another example is found in John 5:45-47. Jesus said to the Jews who were persecuting Him "But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words? IOW's if you don't believe what God has said, then how can you believe what I am saying, I speak the words of God, because I am not only the son of man, but I AM also God.
All scripture are truly words spoken by God. Whenever the scriptures are quoted, God is the One that is heard.

Matt 22:31-32
But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: 32I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB? He (God) is not the God of the dead but of the living.


Job 3:23: Job sought the temple or tabernacle of God (fixed place where God resides), but could not find it, for it had not been revealed to him.

John 2:19-22: Jesus said He (His bodily form) was the temple of God. The temple made without hands.

Col 1:19: Jesus was eternally purposed to be the permanent and fixed dwelling of ALL the fullness of God

Col 2:9: Jesus is the permanent and eternal dwelling of ALL the fullness of God in bodily form (the resurrection and ascended Christ is the Glory of God that Moses saw the hinder parts of. Moses wrote about Him).

1 Cor 15:20-28, 27-28:P This is the depiction and description of who God is, in the end. God the Father subjected all things to the son of man (excepting Himself). After all His works were finished, the son, subjects himself in bodily form to God the Father, so God could be the ALL in ALL. This is the picture of who the God of eternity is. This is the God of the eternal day of creation; the true Sabbath day of God. The day that never ends.

Mark 2:27-28: For the above stated reason, this explains what Jesus meant when He said "man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for man, therefore, the son of man, is Lord of the Sabbath.

Now, here is the thing: The author of the Bible and the One telling the story of His creation, is the eternal God depicted and described through the invisible thread of the Scriptures (I quoted enough to connect the dots, but many more scriptures lead to the same place because the Scriptures testify about the Glory of God: Jesus Christ).

Therefore, the Bible is written and God has spoken from His eternal place in Heaven. However, we still exist in the fullness of time of God's works. Even though He finished them before the foundation of the world.

If God finished His works before He made man (He did), then He spoke creation into existence from his place in eternity (He did), which is depicted in 1 Cor 15:20-28, 27-28 (it is, God eternally dwells in bodily form of the son of man, Jesus Christ).

We should now understand why Col 1:16-17 says all things were created by Him and through Him (God spoke creation by the voice and through the bodily form of Jesus Christ). God spoke creation into existence and the One who lifted up His voice is the One who is the ALL in ALL depicted in 1 Cor 15:27-28; All the fullness of God, eternally dwelling in the bodily form of His own Glory; Jesus Christ.

This means the voice that was heard at Jesus' baptism of John's baptism into repentance and at the transfiguration, came from God, the ALL in ALL. Why or how? Even before the foundation of the world, God finished all His works, therefore God is the God as depicted and described in 1 Cor 15:20-28, 27-28) that spoke creation into existence. He is also the only God that has ever spoken to man about who He is. He eternally abides in the bodily form of His own Glory; Jesus Christ.

This is the God of eternity and this is the only God that has ever spoken!

[ttruscott]

I suspect that God simply created an artificial distinction, declaring by divine fiat, after creation, that the tree was "evil".

There is no support in the Bible that the tree was ever declared to be evil. How do you justify this judgement about the tree?

Because immediately after Adam and Eve ate from the Tree, they obtained knowledge of good and evil, and knew that eating from the tree was evil, and hid from the Lord. If the tree was very good at creation, per Genesis 1, then eating from the tree would also be very good. Therefore the tree was assigned evil status by a mere divine whim after it was created.

This: "they obtained knowledge of good and evil, and knew that eating from the tree was evil," is not logical as a method of knowing the tree was evil. Sure, the eating was bad, but not the tree itself. Them realizing they were indeed evil as GOD had told them, that is, their eyes were opened to their sinfulness...the sin of nakedness and not eating, a sin they had before they ate, was a great blessing and no where in the literature is the tree ever categorized as an evil tree.

Your saying so does not make it so especially when the logic of my interpretation is fuller and takes into account the deeper meaning of the story and the words than does your interpretation, or orthodoxy's.

So where does it say that the tree was "assigned evil status" by a mere divine whim or not? You seem to be making things up about the story.

[Talishi]

Sure, the eating was bad, but not the tree itself....So where does it say that the tree was "assigned evil status" by a mere divine whim or not? You seem to be making things up about the story.

Help me to understand. Why was eating from the tree evil, but the tree itself was very good, if it was not a statement of divine whim with no objective basis? Was there something objectively bad about people eating fruit from a very good tree, or do things become good and evil just because God says so?

[Yahu]

[Replying to post 29 by Yahu]

Good point about the KJV. "Jehovah" is a serious mistranslation. Also, the KJV originally contained the Apocrypha. Funny, how many will say they follow the KJV 1611, when they come nowhere close to it, using much later editions. The traditional view of inerrancy is that only the original texts are inerrant, never the translations. The other problem here is that the "original texts" do not all agree. The Johannie Comma is not at all in the early Bibles. I don't think that crops up until around the 10th century. Between the DSS and later Masoretic editions, the Book of Samuel got shorter and Goliath got much taller.

Then you run into errors from the Codex the KJV was taken from. There are vowel pointing errors (which were added much later btw). For example, there is a vowel pointing error in Isa 57:9 where the KJV translates the word 'king' which should be a reference to the pagan god Molech. Both are spelled MLK in the original un-pointed Hebrew but have different vowel pointing. You have to look at the context of the passage and many translations that use a different codex caught the error. The KJV uses the vowel pointing of the codex they used as gospel truth.

The verse is about sacrifices to Molech and performing ritual witchcraft to summon demonic messengers by 'debasing thyself unto hell'. The entire passage is about the Baalim (entire pantheon of Canaanite gods) worship.

Most translations do a very poor job of translating Job. All of Job's friends for example follow the pagan gods but the translations misuse of 'God' verses 'god/gods/goddess' are rampant in most translations. Much of the problem is there are many pagan references in scripture and the translators don't understand the context and the translation is very dependent of the context. If the translators don't even understand the context, how can it be accurately translated?

The original unpointed text of prophecy can be taken as direct from Yah or books dictated to Moses, but not any passage in our translated library called the Bible. I don't have any problem with any NT books but for example much of it can be Paul's opinion on how to handle situations.

We also know from scripture that Paul and Peter had conflict with Paul rebuking Peter.

Then you have issues like words in Hebrew have more then one meaning that does not apply in English. For example the word 'ben' is translated as 'son of' but can also mean descendant like 'grandson'. The same is true of 'bath', ie daughter. For example, because of this misunderstanding people don't understand that Sarah was Abraham's neice. She was Lot and Milkah's sister, not Abrahams half-sister.

Another example of differing ways a word is used in Hebrew is the word Shammayim, the word 'heavens'. It also means 'the sky' so the passage of Lucifer being cast from the heavens could just as easily be a reference to being cast down from the sky with the tower of Babel.

Then you have things like the Latin word Lucifer being taken as a proper name when it is actually just a title of a pagan sun god meaning 'light-bringer' or 'shining-one' like the Greek title Pheobus for Apollo.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Yahu]

I applaud the way you have done your homework on the subject.

[B Bob]

[Replying to post 21 by B Bob]
Why does Christianity demand God can only be in the form of Jesus? Catholicism says God can speak through the Popes. Maybe some , I say , but not all. How about the famous protestant founders Luther Calvin Zwingli, who survived the fires of heresy. Was not the reformation God speaking ? or the great puritan awakening in America, was not God speaking there?
Your post makes me think God stopped speaking with Jesus.
I'm sure there is much more God wanted to say through him , but well, we know what happened. Was God silenced at his death? Did God have nothing more to say than love your neighbor as yourself? Surely God can continue to teach us something about charity fairness integrity honor wisdom purity peace thrift honesty happiness today. Ya think?

My post was in reference is to "who is the God of eternity speaking" whenever god speaks in the Bible. Read my thesis and explanation at the beginning of this post.

[B Bob]

Sure, the eating was bad, but not the tree itself....So where does it say that the tree was "assigned evil status" by a mere divine whim or not? You seem to be making things up about the story.

Help me to understand. Why was eating from the tree evil, but the tree itself was very good, if it was not a statement of divine whim with no objective basis? Was there something objectively bad about people eating fruit from a very good tree, or do things become good and evil just because God says so?

The tree was not evil. Their eyes were not opened to the understanding of good and evil by the substance of the fruit. It was their disobedience to God that gave them the knowledge of good and evil. Eve was deceived (she didn't believe what God said, therefore she disobeyed). God spoke directly to Adam and told him not to eat the fruit of the tree. Adam knew exactly what God said, but disobeyed anyway. One other note. There is no record of god telling Eve not to eat of the fruit. It could have been Adam that told her what God said. This might explain why Eve added to the "word of God" when she said they were told "not to even touch". God never said not to touch, He only said not to eat. this is the first time someone misquoted God and the consequences were deadly.

[marco]

Help me to understand. Why was eating from the tree evil, but the tree itself was very good, if it was not a statement of divine whim with no objective basis? Was there something objectively bad about people eating fruit from a very good tree, or do things become good and evil just because God says so?

St. Franciis was allegedly good but eating him would be bad. The problem is the interpretation of the images. Obviously a literal take is childish and absurd, so what was meant by such a tree that wasn't a tree, and fruit that weren't fruit?

The task in reading the Bible is to examine an interpretation for correctness and I cannot see how there is a method under the sun of determining which view is correct. There is a supposition that those who retire to the original language and detect some translational error are then best able to give us a true interpretation. But it is one thing to argue the virtues of translation but quite another to fathom what is intended by a passage and its symbols.

In the end if we conclude that this work was divinely inspired and the result is a mass of conflicting interpretations, then we must question our iron conclusion. As, I know you do.

[dio9]

[Replying to marco]

clearly the tree is symbolic. Symbolic things usually refer to people and human behavior. What kind of behavior can be good or bad? We dwell between good and evil at any given moment. and we go one way or the other.
Genesis says this was a most desirable tree . Whatever this most desirable fruit is can be either good or bad for us. As the story goes it turned out to be bad for Adam and Eve. Remember it is a fruit of Good or bad, it could have turned out good for them. Seems the ate the fruit the wrong way or something after the serpent got involved.
The talking serpent is another symbolic character in the story and its involvement seems to have messed up the natural relationship between Adam Eve and the fruit causing them to eat what turned out to be the evil fruit.
I'm suggesting , left to themselves , naturally eating the fruit someday , it would have been good . The serpent may be interpreted as false ego and the fruit interpreted as their true love. Which is the most desirable tree in the garden. From the most desirable tree can come either good or evil depending on how and when one picks the fruit.

[marco]

I'm suggesting , left to themselves , naturally eating the fruit someday , it would have been good . The serpent may be interpreted as false ego and the fruit interpreted as their true love. Which is the most desirable tree in the garden. From the most desirable tree can come either good or evil depending on how and when one picks the fruit.

As I said, we can extract any amount of interpretations. If the passage were meant to give instruction, then it fails in its purpose, which suggests that it is a figurative passage that has come from the imagination of flawed humans.

As with plays, we can analyse plot and character and come up with ideas that owe more to ourselves than to the playwright.

[ttruscott]

Sure, the eating was bad, but not the tree itself....So where does it say that the tree was "assigned evil status" by a mere divine whim or not? You seem to be making things up about the story.

Help me to understand. Why was eating from the tree evil, but the tree itself was very good, if it was not a statement of divine whim with no objective basis?

The evil is found in the disobedience to GOD's command not to eat. Are shell fish evil? Are swine evil? Are wool and linen evil ? yet there are commands about them too and disobedience to the command is sin.

I contend that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is any sin that is the straw that breaks the back of our resistance to accepting our supreme guilt before man and GOD as true and real. We are told about our guilt. We even pay it lip service when we catch ourselves being consciously immoral and may even feel bad but, for some, the time comes when the feeling of guilt is so overwhelming it is like a death to your soul and you must repent to come back to life knowing if you are not accepted by GOD as forgiven it is a just decision.

Before eating, we have no real shame for our cruelties to others, after eating/doing that which proves to our deepest awareness of ourselves that we are indeed totally evil, we are too ashamed to face anyone...

This does not imply that everyone sins huge human sins because I contend that there is no distinction between sins at all - every sin has a supreme and ultimate disvalue to GOD and will have us banished to hell if unforgiven. Therefore even a sin like daring to eat a peach can cause the awareness of being ultimately evil before GOD causing great shame.