T
tucksma
Guest
Genesis 32:1
Psalms 8:5
In Genesis account "Angels of God" is Elohim
Is Psalms account it simple states Angels as Elohim.
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Psalms 8:5
In Genesis account "Angels of God" is Elohim
Is Psalms account it simple states Angels as Elohim.
T
tucksma
Guest
You do have some good points on Ecc, but it still says the Dead know nothing, which means AT LEAST in how you take it that this man knows nothing after his death. If he was in heaven or hell, he'd know something.
Matt 10:28 I have looked into often. If the soul is the same soul mention in Gen 2:7 then the soul is both body and spirit combined. In Acts it says the soul that sinneth, it shall die. So if you sin, your soul will die. It seems to be saying don't be scared of physical harm, but of harm to your faith. They can kill your body, but your ability to be faithful to God only dies once you are in the grave, or in this case in Gahenna.
D
Daley
Guest
The word elohim in Psalm 8:5 is translated from the Hebrew Mesoretic Text which has the oldest copy dating only to about the 10th century C.E. But the Greek Septuagint of the 5th century C.E. has angelos (angels), and has extant fragments dated 2nd to 1st century B.C.E confirming "angels" as the correct rendering. The Septuagint is translated from a Hebrew text which predates the Mesoretic text, and is thus closer to the original documents. This rendering is confirmed by the Holy Spirit himself when he moved the author of Hebrews (probably Paul) to quote Psalm 8:5 in Hebrews 2:7. Here the Bible says "angelos (angels)." So elohim is not the correct reading.
Note also the following the quote makes clear the superiority of the Septuagint (LXX) of over the Mesoretic Text (MT).
"Quote:[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt2, bgcolor: #E9EEE9"]Acts 15.17 (New Testament, King James Version)
...That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Acts 15.17 tells us that a remnant of Israelites will seek the Lord along with all the Gentiles upon whom the name of the Lord is called. Acts 15.17 is actually a quote from Amos 9.12, but when we compare the quote above with its alleged source in Amos 9.12 of the KJV Old Testament, we find a sharp disagreement:
Quote:
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt2, bgcolor: #E9EEE9"]Amos 9.12 (Old Testament, King James Version)
...That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Rather than telling us that a remnant of Israelites will seek the Lord along with all the Gentiles upon whom the name of the Lord is called, as the New Testament quotes it, Amos 9.12 in the KJV would have us believe that the Jews will "POSSESS the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen..."
Remember, Acts 15.17 is supposed to be a quote of Amos 9.12, but when we compare them, we see that they disagree sharply in content. How are we to explain this descrepancy?
The cause for the confusion rests in the fact that the KJV Old Testament was translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text instead of the Greek Septuagint. When we compare the quote of Amos 9.12 found in Acts 15.17 of the KJV with an English translation of Amos 9.12 from the Septuagint, we find a virtually perfect match:
Quote:
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt2, bgcolor: #E9EEE9"]Amos 9.12(Old Testament, Brenton’s English Translation of the Greek Septuagint)
...that the remnant of men, and all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, may earnestly seek me, saith the Lord who does all these things.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
While doing some digging on the subject, I learned that the New Testament, as a general rule, agrees with the Septuagint more frequently than with the Masoretic Text. But the Old Testament that I was using (the King James Version) was translated using the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint. I also learned that the Septuagint is more closely aligned with the biblical manuscripts found in the Dead Sea scrolls as well, and the Dead Sea scrolls date back to the 2nd century BC, well before the New Testament was written.
As Wikipedia puts it, "Some of the attest to Hebrew texts other than those on which the was based; in many cases, these newly found texts accord with the LXX version [emphasis mine]." So not only does the Masoretic Text conflict with the Septuagint and New Testament, but it even conflicts with the Dead Sea scrolls, which predate the oldest manuscripts of the Masoretic Text by almost 1000 years.
It should not be surprising to learn that the Dead Sea scrolls indicate the existence of Hebrew texts of the Old Testament other than the Masoretic Text, firstly because the Dead Sea scrolls predate the Masoretic Text by 1000 years, and secondly because the Masoretic Text was redacted by the Masoretes (who of course rejected Jesus as the Messiah).
Wikipedia’s article on the Masoretic Text has this to say: "The MT was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the between the seventh and tenth centuries ...it has numerous differences of both greater and lesser significance when compared to (extant 4th century) manuscripts of the , a Greek translation (made in the 3rd to 2nd centuries ) of the Hebrew Scriptures that was in popular use in Egypt and Palestine and that is often quoted in the Christian New Testament."
My own brief survey, in which I compared Old Testament passages with New Testament quotations, was done using the King James Version of the Bible. As I said, I found significant disagreements between the two, and this is because the KJV Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Text, but the authors of the New Testament must have quoted from an Old Testament source that much more closely resembled the Septuagint...
Quote:
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt2, bgcolor: #E9EEE9"]Matthew relies on the Septuagint for the assertion that the Messiah's mother was to be a virgin (Matthew 1.23). Jesus himself follows the traditional Septuagint wording in condemning the Pharisees' traditions (Matthew 15.8-9 /Isaiah 29.13)... The Septuagint foretold that the Messiah's death would be unjust (Acts 8.32-33) and that the Gentiles would seek the Lord (Acts 15.16-17 /Amos 9.11-12). The Hebrew has the nations being "possessed" along with Edom. Paul knows that a remnant of Israel will be saved because he was reading the Old Testament in Greek (Romans 9.27-28 / Isaiah 10.22-23). Perhaps if his topic were the return to the Holy Land and not salvation, he would have found the Hebrew reading more suitable... Paul's thought that Jesus would rule the Gentiles also depends on a Septuagint reading (Romans 15.12 / Isaiah 11.10). The author of the book of Hebrews - to prove the deity of Christ - proclaims that Jesus is worshipped by all the angels of God (Hebrews 1.6 / Deut. 32.43). But the Hebrew Old Testament does not contain that verse. Also on the basis of the Greek Old Testament, that author asserts that the incarnation was prophecied (Hebrews 10.5-7 / Psalm 40.6-8) - that Jesus would have a body, which he would offer for our sanctification (Hebrews 10.10). The Masoretic text at this point stresses auditory capability. Finally, where the Masoretic text described a nonviolent suffering servant, the Septuagint prophesied a sinless Messiah (1 Peter 2.22 / Isaiah 53.9)...
Overall, the agreement in sense between the New Testament and the Septuagint is 93%. This compares favorably with the rate of agreement between the New Testament quotations and the Hebrew Old Testament, 68%." (The Septuagint v. The Mesoretic Text (Bible)https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidicke.com%2Fforum%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D32990&ei=ufUuU6bAFsqAkQe_8IDQBQ&usg=AFQjCNHg7syu1jUZlY2eaf8AenCi4dameQ&sig2=NkC7knaHqG8Qn1KaYXUphQ&bvm=bv.62922401,d.eW0[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
You can check the accuracy of this information yourself, its all available in encyclopedias and Bible dictionaries. So the bottom line is that angels are never called gods in the Bible. The only gods the Bible ever mentions are3 false gods, because there is only one God, and any others claiming to be gods would have to be false.
In Genesis 32:1 the Hebrew word for angels is malek, not elohim. In the Septuagint this word is angelos (angels), so again, angels are never called elohim in the Bible, just goes to show how you twist Scripture.
A
Alligator
Guest
D
Daley
Guest
First you give the possibility that the soul in Matthew 10:28 is a combination of body and spirit. But in that case, you think that Jesus was really saying: "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the [body and spirit]: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both [body and spirit] and body in hell." This makes very little sense because on one hand Jesus would be saying men can kill the body, but can't kill the body when it is united with the spirit; but all our bodies are united with spirit. That's how God made man (Gen 2:7). If no one could kill the body when it is united with the spirit, no one could kill any of us. People get killed everyday, so that is obviously false.
Secondly, Jesus says "BOTH soul and body," imply two different, separate things. To say "BOTH body, spirit, and body" would be to imply three things, which involves the existence of two bodies, or, it would simply mean body and spirit. In that case, the soul would then become another word for the spirit, but the Bible does not say that the soul is the spirit. Even if it did, then we are back to a body which can be killed by men, and a soul/spirit which cannot be killed by them.
Then you gave another interpretation (as if you are not sure what the verse means) about the soul meaning the person's faith. So you think Jesus was saying: "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill [your faith]: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both [your faith] and body in hell." This again does injustice to the word of God. First it pulls the matter of faith into the verse when the context wasn't having any such discussion about faith. Hebrews 11:1 defines faith, and its hard to imagine how, if a person ceases to exist at death, how his faith will not also cease to exist! A person only can have faith if they are alive, so if they are out of existence, then where is their faith? It also makes faith seem like an entity that can exist by itself without the person's physical body. I would argue some part of them must exist for their faith to remain in operation. In any case, "faith" is not one of the lexical definitions of the word "soul" found in any dictionary I am aware of. Now you were the one who cliamed the same word cannot have two vastly different (almost contradictory) meanings. Yet, you have the word soul meaning a physical body possessing a soul in Genesis 2:7, and I'm sure you know the soul is the body in Joshua 11:11 (for it clearly was not the spirit that was destroyed by the sword), but in contrast, you have the word soul to mean "faith" in Matthew 10:28, a non-physical, intangible, invisible, abstract reality, which (unlike the physical soul of Genesis 2:7) cannot be killed. So even in your own erroneous reasoning to escape the truth of the Bible, you have ended up making the same kind of mistake you accused me of.
Why not just take Jesus at his word, that there is a body men can kill, and when it dies, the soul does not? Yes, passages saying the soul dies simply mean the physical body dies, but the word soul obviously doesn't mean the physical body in Matthew 10:28. It means something separate from that body.
In 1 Kings 17:17-23 the soul that came back into the dead boy's body obviously was not his body, nor was it something physical. Nor was it a combination of body + spirit that came back into his body. In Genesis 35:18 it wasn't a combination of body + spirit that departed, was it? The soul can be nothing physical in any of these passages. Surely you don't believe that it was Rachel's "faith" leaving her body when she died, do you? So what was it?
A
Alligator
Guest
good post. In studying the Bible, the general rule of thumb is that if there is not something in the context of indicate otherwise, it could be taken literally.
A
Alligator
Guest
D
Daley
Guest
And its amazing how much gymnastic people have to do to get their interpretation into a passage. That ought to show that it was literal to begin with.
There are four synonymous words for hell in the bible, the word hell actually comes from the anglo-saxon word hellan, or helle, and did not exist at the time of the original writing. The word means hidden place as does the Greek word Hades. The word Hell was used in place of "Tartarus", "Gehenna". "Hades" and "Sheol" "Tartarus" is the subterranean prison in which the Greek gods or titans were held. "Gehenna" was a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem, where refuse was burned with fire continually. "Sheol" is Hebrew for the grave. Though it is time consuming, it is possible for any student of the Bible to discern which word was substituted by the word hell each and every place it is used, if the student has access to a concordance. If one takes all the meaning of the words and combines them you end up with a hidden place, underground, consumed with fire.
Hell in and of itself has no meaning where it is used and was assigned in error by the translators, based upon their own misconceptions. The student must be mindful at all times that the Old testament was written in the Hebrew, and the New testament was written primarily in the Greek. By looking up the original words and their definitions is the only way one can discern the truth.
Hell in and of itself has no meaning where it is used and was assigned in error by the translators, based upon their own misconceptions. The student must be mindful at all times that the Old testament was written in the Hebrew, and the New testament was written primarily in the Greek. By looking up the original words and their definitions is the only way one can discern the truth.
Lake of fire
Only one has a death sentence, and that one is the Son of Perdition, who is Satan. Perdition means "to turn to ash from within and without" Whatever the lake of fire is, it has the power to completely destroy a spiritual being. Satan and all that follow him into the lake of fire await that destiny. Christ said that none of His sheep will be lost or taken out of His hand. If you are of the Holy Seed and are with Christ, you have nothing to fear.
Only one has a death sentence, and that one is the Son of Perdition, who is Satan. Perdition means "to turn to ash from within and without" Whatever the lake of fire is, it has the power to completely destroy a spiritual being. Satan and all that follow him into the lake of fire await that destiny. Christ said that none of His sheep will be lost or taken out of His hand. If you are of the Holy Seed and are with Christ, you have nothing to fear.
D
Daley
Guest
The meaning of a word depends on the context in which it is used. The dictionary does not define an elephant as a very fat woman, but if I say "she's an elephant," anyone would know I mean that she is very large, or overweight. Even with all the definitions you gave, we must look at how the Bible writer is using the word. I agree that the words sheol and hades do mean the grave in some parts of the Bible, but not always. In fact, it is silly to think that a word can only have one meaning, or that it can only be used in the way a dictionary defines it. In Isaiah 14 Lucifer (morining star), who is not Satan but the king od Babylon, is spoken to by others he meets when he enters into sheol. This cannot be the grave. Nor was the grave where the rich man was tormented in Luke 16.
D
Daley
Guest
The wild beast and the false prophet are cast into the lake of fire in Rev 19:20, then the Devil is bound for 1000 years. (Rev 20:1-3) After the 1000 years Satan is loosed (Rev 20:7-9) and cast into the lake of fire where he finds the wild beast and the false prophet still there, and they (Satan, the wild beast, and the false prophet) will be tormented day and night forever. (Rev 20:10) So when the wild beast and false prophet were cast into the lake of fire they obviously were not destroyed in the sense that they lost their existence, otherwise Satan would not find them there after a thousand years. It doesn't say they will be destroyed either, but rather, they will be TORMENTED everyday, forever. What does tormented mean? Can someone who doesn't exist be tormented? And doesn't this show others besides the Devil will enter the lake of fire?
Matt 25:41 says this fire is EVERLASTING. It is no temporary fire used only to turn things to ash then be extinguished, it will last forever. Notices Matt 25:46 compares "EVERLASTING punishment" for the wicked with "EVERLASTING life" for the righteous. If everlasting life is an eternal but conscious experience of life, then everlasting punishment is an eternal but conscious experience of punishment. If a criminal was hanged six years ago, is the court still punishing him today? No, they can only hang him once. A man who no longer exists cannot be punished any further, but Jesus says the wicked will be punished "FOREVER." I choose to believe Jesus, and its that simple.
T
tucksma
Guest
When I hear everlasting punishment, and everything you just stated about punishing forever I interpret it as a punishment that lasts forever. A fire that destroys is a punishment that does last forever. You are dead, non existent, forever.
Also you seem to think that there is not literary use in the bible. When the Babylonian king is talked to as he enters sheol, its just saying he goes there with tons of people he knew, it isn't a literal talking to. Again the reason this is, is because is psalms it says we will perish. In Acts it says the soul that sins it shall die.
Fire doesn't torment it destroys. When your house is on fire, does it just chill there being burnt? No it goes to ashes. When you are on fire, does it just hurt? No you die and also (if burnt long enough and hot enough) go to ash. Fire isn't a torture device its a destruction, an ending.
The wages of Sin is death, so what dies? Acts says its the Soul that dies if we sin.
T
tucksma
Guest
What do you even think goes to hell? Like honestly I'm curious? Like some floating ball of you? Or what?
My friend put it in a way that I can't top. The part of you that makes you, you, is all the chemicals in your brain. These are VERY PHYSICAL things. When you become blind, that part of your brain goes dormant. Same with hearing, and smell (if you can lose that). So if you die, your brain dies, and everything that made you an individual dies as well. There isn't any part of you, that makes you you, outside of the brain. The spirit is simply the "breath of life" (Gen. 2:7) Its the thing that makes your heart start ticking. The power of God that actually lets us live. At our death, God takes his power back, and all the dust of the earth we are made out of goes back to the ground. There is not part of us that is left over that then goes to heaven/hell. The breath of life goes back to God. The dust goes back to the ground. Simple as that, until the resurrection at least.
My friend put it in a way that I can't top. The part of you that makes you, you, is all the chemicals in your brain. These are VERY PHYSICAL things. When you become blind, that part of your brain goes dormant. Same with hearing, and smell (if you can lose that). So if you die, your brain dies, and everything that made you an individual dies as well. There isn't any part of you, that makes you you, outside of the brain. The spirit is simply the "breath of life" (Gen. 2:7) Its the thing that makes your heart start ticking. The power of God that actually lets us live. At our death, God takes his power back, and all the dust of the earth we are made out of goes back to the ground. There is not part of us that is left over that then goes to heaven/hell. The breath of life goes back to God. The dust goes back to the ground. Simple as that, until the resurrection at least.
D
Daley
Guest
The thing that lasts FOREVER in Revelation 20:10 is "TORMENT." "And shall be TORMENTED day and night for ever and ever." It doesn't say they WON'T EXIT for ever and ever, but "tormented." What does "torment" mean?
YOU say fire isn't a torture device, THE BIBLE says in Luke 16:24 "I am TORMENTED in this flame," and Revelation 20:10 says much the same. I choose to believe the Bible, not you.
Sure, fire is a destructive thing in this physical world, but you can't apply that to the spirit world because you don't know the laws that operate in that dimension; we can only accept what God tells us. When the Bible speaks of God's eyes, does it mean that he sees in the same way we see? Of course not! God's ears, the mechanism by which he hears, is different from ours and operates by different laws. But he must hear with something. And so too the angels hear and see with something. So just like God and the angels, if I have the rich man in the spirit world see, hearing and feeling, I don't suppose he does so with the same exact kind of mechanisms we use in a physical body, but he does have a mechanism, and by these mechanism which we don't understand, he felt pain. So I have no doubt that the fire was able to give him that pain, but because its in the spirit world we can't assume it must operate the same as fire in this world.
What is a spirit made of? How do you know fire would destroy it?
Since you argue that fire always consumes, then why wasn't the burning bush Moses saw in Exodus 3 destroyed? Can you tell me? If such miracles can occur in our world, why can fire in the next world also burn a spirit being without that being being destroyed?
So does the soul meaning the body being destroyed in some verses, prove that when the soul does not mean the body it must also be destroyed? Matthew 10:28 clearly shows that when the body dies, which is the death of a soul, the other soul does not die.
D
Daley
Guest
If you could imagine what a spirit actually looks like, that would give you an idea of what leaves your body when you die. In Luke 9:28-35 Moses and Elijah are still alive, and come to speak with Jesus. Had the resurrection occurred?
D
Daley
Guest
No, this is Elohim, appearing as the Malek Yahweh. God is called "the Angel" in Gen 48:15-16.
Case in point....with whom did Jacob wrestle...?
We can see exactly how the sum-total of scripture informs the reader exactly who Jacob wrestled with, and this is with the Second Person of the Trinity, The Son:
· The Word of Yahweh (1 Kings 18.31)
· Yahweh (2 Kings 17.34)
· Malek ‘Messenger’ (Hosea 12.4)
· Elohim ‘God’ (Gen 32.28)
· Man (Gen 32.24)
Here, the terms Elohim and Malek are used interchangeably...
D
Daley
Guest
This agrees with what I was saying. It wasn't a mere angel appearing as God, it was God appearing as an angel. Not just any angel, but The Angel of the Lord. That was a title for the pre-incarnate Christ.