Genesis Chapter 1--A Motion of Warfare

[toolsoftrust]

It is an interesting thought; but from a linguistic perspective your reading would require ts'vah oht ahm. When host is plural you do indeed have a military connotation. I do agree that there is spiritual warfare involved in Genesis 3; but as a linguist I can't connect it to ts'vah ahm.

I read the following yesterday, but have held to the same view indefinitely:

Some of you may want to leave issues of text, grammar, and lexicon to scholars—but much of the evidence that scholars use when translating is available for you as well. Based on your reading of the evidence adduced, you may decide that the scholarly consensus is wrong, that a word is ambiguous, or you may even find evidence for a new interpretation of a word, phrase, verse, or chapter.

--Professor Marc Brettler, Judaic Studies, Duke University

http://thetorah.com/biblical-interpretations-text-lexicon-and-grammar

In fact, I tend to believe that every segment of Biblical Hebrew, ought to be rendered severally [and correctly], in every case, including the terms themselves. And I believe every Scripture has it's rendering immediately applicable to every generation, and that the revelations themselves, given from the settings of the times in Moses through the Revelation given to John by Jesus Christ, are one and the same message, in form and function, precisely for each generation, ultimately towards the end-time.

 

[MarcR]

I read the following yesterday, but have held to the same view indefinitely:

Some of you may want to leave issues of text, grammar, and lexicon to scholars—but much of the evidence that scholars use when translating is available for you as well. Based on your reading of the evidence adduced, you may decide that the scholarly consensus is wrong, that a word is ambiguous, or you may even find evidence for a new interpretation of a word, phrase, verse, or chapter.

--Professor Marc Brettler, Judaic Studies, Duke University

http://thetorah.com/biblical-interpretations-text-lexicon-and-grammar

In fact, I tend to believe that every segment of Biblical Hebrew, ought to be rendered severally [and correctly], in every case, including the terms themselves. And I believe every Scripture has it's rendering immediately applicable to every generation, and that the revelations themselves, given from the settings of the times in Moses through the Revelation given to John by Jesus Christ, are one and the same message, in form and function, precisely for each generation, ultimately towards the end-time.

Since this is certainly NOT a Salvation issue, there is no need for either of us to persuade the other.

The notion of Spiritual Warfare is certainly consistent with NT Revelation; and is certainly evident in Gen chapter 3

If you want to believe it extends back to chapter 1; that is certainly not going to lead anyone astray.

The fact that I don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

[toolsoftrust]

Since this is certainly NOT a Salvation issue, there is no need for either of us to persuade the other.

The notion of Spiritual Warfare is certainly consistent with NT Revelation; and is certainly evident in Gen chapter 3

If you want to believe it extends back to chapter 1; that is certainly not going to lead anyone astray.

The fact that I don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

For what other reason would God have made this universe, to decay, and be folded up and discarded, as a used garment, than as an arena of war against his archenemy, the devil?

 

[toolsoftrust]

At this point, since you've already declared no one else is getting Genesis right, I am of the belief that you are about to teach us a whole new theocracy.

Which, of course, you can't without creating a whole new god. Sooo, I tend to think Locutus was on to something when he said readers are falling asleep. Not quite that as much as I think wise readers should fall asleep.

Wiser still -- time to walk away.

I haven't concluded that at all. If that were the case, every Christian denomination would be base, except for one, each one claiming they are right, and everyone besides them wrong. But that's not really what we are saying, is it? We are saying that the Muslims, the Asian-spiritualists, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and other false-creeds are anti-christ, which saying is a truth; that those who embrace the cross are of truth.

What I am saying, is that our modern translations could be translated more correctly; and by extension, our official doctrinal statements, case-by-case and as a whole, are deficient and incomplete.

 

[toolsoftrust]

Toolsoftrust, do you hold to the gap theory regarding the first two verses of Genesis 1?

A clue in Genesis 3:1--The serpent is described as a beast "of the field." The other creatures are called creatures, and beasts "of the earth." The "field," is associated in the local context with hard labor; not entering God's rest. "The earth" is associated more with Adam, Seth, Enosh, Noah, etc. "The field," is more associated with Cain, Lamech, etc.

This might suggest that the "dinosaurs" are of the seed of the serpent, their bones testifying of their chains.

 

[notuptome]

So God created all this just so He could war against the devil? Must have very boring in eternity past.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Nehemiah6]

For what other reason would God have made this universe, to decay, and be folded up and discarded, as a used garment, than as an arena of war against his archenemy, the devil?

You seem to forget that God is the Creator and the devil is a mere creature -- a fallen angel. Had God chosen to eradicate him altogether at the start He could have done so, and avoided the presence of any archenemy. Had Adam and Eve chosen to rebuke the serpent and send him packing, they could have done so. Instead, they chose to disobey God.

But God had another purpose in allowing Satan and his evil angels to attack humans. Faith must be tested in order to be proved genuine, and these evil creatures are there to test the faith of humanity. But they have a finite existence (on earth), following which a New Heavens and a New Earth will be established. So God did not create merely to have spiritual warfare, and the Bible does not teach Dualism -- that Satan has as much power as God.

 

[toolsoftrust]

You seem to forget that God is the Creator and the devil is a mere creature -- a fallen angel. Had God chosen to eradicate him altogether at the start He could have done so, and avoided the presence of any archenemy. Had Adam and Eve chosen to rebuke the serpent and send him packing, they could have done so. Instead, they chose to disobey God.

But God had another purpose in allowing Satan and his evil angels to attack humans. Faith must be tested in order to be proved genuine, and these evil creatures are there to test the faith of humanity. But they have a finite existence (on earth), following which a New Heavens and a New Earth will be established. So God did not create merely to have spiritual warfare, and the Bible does not teach Dualism -- that Satan has as much power as God.

And, which of your points do I seem to have "forgotten?"

 

[toolsoftrust]

So God created all this just so He could war against the devil? Must have very boring in eternity past.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I had intended to answer this earlier, but was disrupted.

Not at all. God's whole purpose in making creation is to show the extreme magnitude of his mercy and salvation, part of which is destroying the devil's works, with God's own very good handiwork.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

After numerous careful studies of Genesis 1 through 2:7, I've concluded that Chapter 1 is a swift motion of warfare by God. I say this because Genesis 2:1 uses the term rendered in old-English as "host," (plural), with the literal Hebrew meanings of "armies," "wars," and "warfare." I am indeed breaking from the modern Bible versions that I am accustomed to for this crucial reason. They fail to convey this vital purpose of God for creating the universe.

More importantly, our entire translation of Genesis chapter 1, and the rest of Scripture depends on these wars taking place among angels and men.

A good place to start is to look up all of the Hebrew words for the beginning of Genesis. If you do (and look up the roots of the words too, to get a more rounded understanding), you see that there was a lot more going on than our English words convey.

But I wouldn't worry as much about your translation - none of them convey the ugly horror of what was going on as the Hebrew words do.

 

[Dino246]

A clue in Genesis 3:1--The serpent is described as a beast "of the field." The other creatures are called creatures, and beasts "of the earth." The "field," is associated in the local context with hard labor; not entering God's rest. "The earth" is associated more with Adam, Seth, Enosh, Noah, etc. "The field," is more associated with Cain, Lamech, etc.

This might suggest that the "dinosaurs" are of the seed of the serpent, their bones testifying of their chains.

Perhaps you could answer my question directly. As to your idea about dinosaurs, I see no support for it in either the text or reports of field investigation. Bones don't testify of chains. Bones only testify that a once-living creature has died.

 

[toolsoftrust]

Perhaps you could answer my question directly. As to your idea about dinosaurs, I see no support for it in either the text or reports of field investigation. Bones don't testify of chains. Bones only testify that a once-living creature has died.

I answered your question directly once. This was continued from our first dialogue. And death, does indeed testify to chains.

 

[Dino246]

I answered your question directly once. This was continued from our first dialogue. And death, does indeed testify to chains.

You responded to my question but did not answer it. I'm looking for a simple "yes" or "no". "Neither" could work too.
As to the bolded part above, care to elaborate? You seem to have a stream of thought on this, and I don't feel like guessing what you mean.

 

[toolsoftrust]

You responded to my question but did not answer it. I'm looking for a simple "yes" or "no". "Neither" could work too.
As to the bolded part above, care to elaborate? You seem to have a stream of thought on this, and I don't feel like guessing what you mean.

I don't hold to any theory(ies). So no.
Death, by definition is chained. Life, by definition is total freedom.

 

[Dino246]

I don't hold to any theory(ies). So no.
Death, by definition is chained. Life, by definition is total freedom.

Thanks for the direct answer.

I don't know where you get your definitions, but I don't agree with them as they don't conform to any dictionary or Scripture with which I'm familiar. Therefore I would reject your theory about dinosaurs and fossils.