Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Case For Anthropomorphism

Expand Messages
  • R.hero
    If God did not mean all He said about Himself in so many passages then why did He say such things? They certainly do not add to a true understanding of Him if
    Message 1 of 13 , Oct 13, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      If God did not mean all He said about Himself in so many passages then why did He say such things? They certainly do not add to a true understanding of Him if the passages do not mean what they say.
      Why would God, in hundreds of places, refer to Himself as having bodily parts, soul passions, and spirit faculties if He does not have them? Would it be necessary for Him to tell us He has such in order to reveal that He does not have eyes, hands, mouth, ears, and other bodily members?
      It is logical not to question the plain, simple statements of Scripture about God and His Body; it is logical to understand them in the same literal way that we understand like statements about angels, men, and other beings.
      We have no Bible authority to do otherwise. Rom.1:20 alone proves this!
      The truth is that God has revealed Himself to be seen by the natural eyes of men repeatedly; and Bible writers have given a clear record concerning what He is like. The many personal descriptions of God's body and thousands of plain declarations regarding His soul passions and spirit attributes should not be denied or interpreted contrary to
      what is written; they should be believed in all simplicity.
      The constant rejection of revealed facts about God certainly will not give us a true understanding of Him. To acknowledge them as truth will not make God any less glorious or powerful or great than He really is. God can be like man in bodily form and still be as
      magnificent as we have always thought Him to be. He can have a spirit-substance body and still be like man in size and shape; and He can have passions, feelings, desires, intelligence, and will power without being confined to man's limitation and sinfulness. Truly He is not only all that man, angels, and other beings are in this respect, but infinitely greater in everything; and man, in reality, is simply a miniature of God in attributes and powers.



      *******************IMAGE AND LIKENESS*******************

      The word translated "image" in the original Hebrew is "tselem" -lit. shade. Its usage proves it refers to outward form, not attributes!(See Gen.1:26-27; 5:3; 9:6; Ex.20:4; Lev.26:1; Ps.73:20; 106:19; Isa.40:19-20; 44:9-17; 45:20; 48:5; Jer.10:14; 51:17. cp. Rom.1:20; 1Cor.11:7;Jas.3:9)
      The Hebrew word for likeness is "demooth", -lit. resemblance and it also refers to outward form as proved by its usage. (See Gen.1:26;5:1; 5:3; Isa.40;18; Ezek.1:5; 1:10; 1:13; 1:16; 1:22; 1:26; 1:28;8:2; 10:1; 10:11; 10:21; 10:22)
      The Greek word "eikon" confirms the idea of bodily image and likeness, (See Mt.22:20;Acts 19:35; Rom.1:23; 11:4; 1Cor.11:7; 15:49;Col.1:15; Heb.10:1; Jas.3:9; Rev. 13:14-15)

      There is no question that man was made in the image and likeness of God in soul and spirit or moral and spiritual likeness (see Eph.4:22-24; Col.3:10),nor should there be with the body being also made in the image and likeness of God, as in all the above passages!


      God is Spirit(Jn.4:24 NIV)
      This "dynamic equivalence translation" phrase(see post#13,sub-title translations and post#17) is often used to prove God bodiless, for it implies God is bodiless and floating everywhere. Even so, it would be a false implication for even resurrected human bodies are called spiritual (see 1Cor.15:42-44),yet they will also be material(see Lk.24:39; Phil.3:21)! The original Gr. phrase in Jn.4:24 is "pneuma o Theos" -lit. God is a Spirit, and thus translate in the "verbal and formal equivalence translations". Obviously this does not imply God is bodiless and floating everywhere. What it does imply is that God is a Spirit being!

      ****************62 FACTS ABOUT GOD:*********************

      1. HE IS a person (Job 13:8;Heb.1:3 NKJV)
      2. HE HAS a spirit body (Dan.7:9-14; 10:5-19; Isa.6;Ezek.1;Rev.4)
      3. Shape (Jn.5:37)
      4. Form (Num.12:1-8;Phil.2:5-7)
      5. Image and likeness (Gen.1:26;9:6;1Cor.11;7;Jas.3;9)
      6. Back parts (Ex.33:23)
      7. Heart (Gen.6:6;8:21)
      8. Hands (Ps.102:25-26;Heb.1:10)
      9. Fingers (Ps.8:3-6;Ex.31:18)
      10. Right hand (Rev.5:1-7)
      11. Mouth (Num.12:8;Isa.1:20)
      12. Lips (Isa.11:4; 30:27)
      13. Tongue (Isa. 30:27)
      14. Feet (Ex.24:10; Ezek.1:27)
      15. Eyes (Ps.11:4; 18:24; 3:18)
      16. Ears (Ps.18:6; 34:15)
      17. Head (Dan. 7:9)
      18. Hair (Dan. 7:9)
      19. Arms (Ps.44:3; Jn.12:38)
      20. Loins (Ezek. 1:26-28; 8:1-4)
      21. Voice (ps.29; Rev.10:3-4)
      22. Breath (Gen.2:7)
      23. Countenance (Ps.11;7)
      24. Soul (Mt. 12:18; Heb.10:38)
      25. Soul passions, such as: Grief (Gen.6:6)
      26. Anger (1Ki.11:9 cp. Eph.4:26)
      27. Repentance [regret](Gen.6:6)
      28. Jealousy (Ex.20:5; 34:14 cp.2Cor.11:2)
      29. Hate(Pr.6:16 cp.Rom.12:9)
      30. Love (Jn.3:16 cp.1Cor.13:4-6)
      31. Pity (Ps.103:13)
      32. Fellowship ((1Jn.1:1-7)
      33. Pleasure and delight (Ps.147:10)
      34. Joy (Neh.8:10; Gal.5:22)
      35. Peace (Gal.5:22)
      36. Longsuffering [patience] (Gal..5:22)
      37. Gentleness [kindness] (Gal.5:22)
      38. Goodness (Gal.5:22)
      39. Faithfulness (1Cor.10:13;Gal.5:22)
      40. Meekness [gentleness](Gal.5:23)
      41. Self-Control (Gal.5:23)
      42. Spirit (Ps.143:10;Isa.30:1)
      43. Spirit faculties, such as: Mind(Rom.11:34)
      44. Intelligence (Gen.1:26;Rom.11:33)
      45. Will (Rom. 8:27; 9:19)
      46. Power (Eph.1:19; 3:7; 3:20; Heb.1:3)
      47. Truth (Ps.91:4)
      48. Faith (Rom.4:17; 12:3)
      49. Hope (1Cor.13:13)
      50. Righteousness (Ps.45:4)
      51. Knowledge (Isa.11:2)
      52. Wisdom (1Tim.1:17)
      53. Discernment (Heb.4:12)
      54. Immutability [never change] (Heb.6:17)
      55. He wears clothes (Dan.7:9-14)
      56. Eats food (Gen.18:1-8; Ex.24:11)
      57. Rests (Gen.2:1-4;Heb.4:4)
      58. Dwells in a city (Jn.14:1-3)
      59. Sits on a throne (Isa.6;dan.7:9-11)
      60. Walks (Gen.3:8;18:1-18; 18:22; 18:33)
      61.Rides (Ps.18:10; 68:17; Ezek.1)
      62. Manifests other powers and bodily presence like other beings. He
      has appeared to many as a person-to Adam and Eve(Gen.2:7; 2:19;
      2:22);Cain(Gen.4:6;4:9;4:16);Abraham(Gen.17:1-
      22;18:1;18:22;19:1);Isaac(Gen.26:2-4; 26:24);Jacob (Gen.28:12-15;
      32:24-32; 35:1);Moses(Ex.3:1-4;24:12-18; 33:9-11);Joshua (Josh.5:13-
      15);Samuel(1Sam.3:10;3:21)Elijah(1Ki.19:11-18);David(1Chr.21:16-17;
      2Chr.3:1);Isa.6);and others.



      **********************UNSEEN GOD********************

      "No one has ever seen God at any time, BUT THE SON." (Jn.1:18)
      The Greek word for seen is "horao", and is used like our English "seen", which means to see with the eyes and with the mind. Here it is clear that it refers to seeing Him with the mind or fully comprehending Him, for many passages talk of seeing God with the eyes
      (Gen.18:2,,33;32:24-30;Ex.24:10;33:11;Josh.5:13;isa.6;Ezek.24:10;Dan.7:9-14;;10:5-
      6;Acts7:56-59;Rev.4:2-5;5:1-7).
      The verse could read "no man has ever comprehended or experienced God at any time in all His fullness', save the only begotten Son..He hath declared Him."
      That Christ is the first to experience God in the fullness of the Holy Spirit is clear from Jn.3:34;Acts.0:38;Isa.11:1-2;61:1-2;Lk.4:16-18.

      "... no man can see me and yet live." (Ex.33:20)
      Let us look at the context: In Ex.33:11,Moses saw God in a physical sense like so many others when God is not in His usual glory. But Moses wanted to see God "in His glory"(Ex.33:18).God simply stated this was impossible to see His glory as expressed in His face (Ex.33:20)and that it is only possible to see Him in His glory from his back side, but my face shall not be seen(Ex.33:21-23).That Moses and all of Israel saw God's glory in a limited sense is clear from Ex.16:10; 24:16-17;so the request by Moses in Ex.33:18 was for
      something he had not yet seen. God's face in His usual glory and in the light that He lives in, no one has seen or can see.
      (Ex.33:20;33:22;1Tim.6:16).Moses became an example of this impossibility of man seeing the face of God when He lives in a light, whom no one has seen or can see(1Tim.6:16),when his face could not be looked upon by Israel because of its brightness (Ex.34:29-35; 2Cor.
      3:6-18).


      ***************************Ancient Superstition*******************

      The above statement and other like statements were no doubt the foundation of the ancient superstition that if one saw God he would die.(See Gen.32:30; Dt.5:24; Judg.13:22; Isa. 6:5;Rev.1:16-18)But many times God had proved this to be pure superstition, as the Scriptures show that not one of His appearances caused the death of anyone.




      **********************INVISIBILITY***********************

      "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created: things in Heaven and on earth, visible and invisible..."(Col.1:15-16 NIV)
      Invisible things are made up of material substance which is visible in its own realm. Invisibility, therefore, consists more of distance and of concealment than substance. Anything out of eyesight range is invisible and or objects concealed are invisible. God, angels, and appear at will. They have been seen with the eyes many times, proving that invisibility must be understood with them as with all other invisible things that can become visible.(e.g. have a look through a microscope).
      Spirit beings are obviously of a higher substance than mortals and ordinary material that we see. They are not limited to ordinary substance as we know it, for they can go through closed doors, walls, and other material objects, as proven by what is recorded in Scripture of angels and others. Even the material, spiritual, and immortalized body of Christ, a real flesh and bone body(Lk.24:39),can go through material walls without an opening (Jn.20:19;Lk.24:31; 24:35-43).

      **********************OMNI-PRESENTS**********************

      Everywhere present. God the Father, God the son, God the Holy Spirit are all present where there are beings with whom they have dealings; but their bodies are not omnipresent. All three go from place to place bodily as other beings in the universe do. We know this to be true, for many scriptures speak of each person of the Divine Trinity, as follows:
      1. God the Father(Gen.3:8; 11:5; 18:1-22; 18:33; 32:24-32; 35:13)
      2. Jesus Christ, the son of the Father. He came from Heaven into the world as a person distinct from both the Father and the Holy Spirit-to live here, then returned to Heaven and the Father to be seated on His right hand side ,from whence He will come again.(Acts 1:11;Heb.1:3)
      3.The holy Spirit,. He is spoken of as moving upon creation (Gen.1:2), coming into THE MIDST (2Chr.20:14), descending from heaven upon Jesus (Mt.3:16;Mk.1:10;Lk.3:21-22), and abiding with or departing from men (Jn.1:32;1 Sam.16:14). He was to come into the world to abide among men (Jn.14:16; 14:26; 15:26; 16:7-11). Omnipresence then is governed by relationship and knowledge of God. Like the presence of someone being felt by another who is thousands of miles away, so it is with the presence of God among men(1Cor.5:3-4).





      *********************INDWELLING*************************
      The doctrine of interpenetration in Scripture, hat is, persons entering into each other, as Paul said of Corinthians and Philippians being in his heart(2Cor.7:3;Phil.1:7);God being in Christ (2Cor.5:19);Christ being in God(Jn.14:20);God and Christ being in each other(Jn.14:10-11);men being in both the Father and the Son (1Jn.2:24);men being in Christ(2Cor.5:17);men and the Spirit being in each other(Rom.8:9);Christ being in men(Col.1:27;Rom.8:10);man and Christ being in each other (Jn.14:20); all creation being in God(Acts17:28); and Satan entering into men(Lk.22:3;Jn.13:27).In all the above examples, it means in union with, consecration to the same end-one in mind, purpose, and life, not bodily entrance into.
      Hence, Satan, an angelic being having his own spirit body, entering into Judas simply means
      Judas submitted to Satan's temptation to betray Jesus. He became one with Satan, like men become one in spirit with God when joined to Him in consecration (see 1Cor.6:17).In fact, idiomatic interpenetration language is often used today. Who has never heard a teenager say, "I'm into this musician or this actor"?
    • Rob
      R.hero, I m curious. Did you derive any of this material from another source, perhaps another website? I d like to know the context in which this material was
      Message 2 of 13 , Oct 14, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        R.hero,

        I'm curious. Did you derive any of this material from another source, perhaps another website? I'd like to know the context in which this material was developed.

        In Christ's service,
        Rob Bowman



        --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "R.hero" <rdhero@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > If God did not mean all He said about Himself in so many passages then why did He say such things? They certainly do not add to a true understanding of Him if the passages do not mean what they say.
        > Why would God, in hundreds of places, refer to Himself as having bodily parts, soul passions, and spirit faculties if He does not have them? Would it be necessary for Him to tell us He has such in order to reveal that He does not have eyes, hands, mouth, ears, and other bodily members?
        > It is logical not to question the plain, simple statements of Scripture about God and His Body; it is logical to understand them in the same literal way that we understand like statements about angels, men, and other beings.
        > We have no Bible authority to do otherwise. Rom.1:20 alone proves this!
        > The truth is that God has revealed Himself to be seen by the natural eyes of men repeatedly; and Bible writers have given a clear record concerning what He is like. The many personal descriptions of God's body and thousands of plain declarations regarding His soul passions and spirit attributes should not be denied or interpreted contrary to
        > what is written; they should be believed in all simplicity.
        > The constant rejection of revealed facts about God certainly will not give us a true understanding of Him. To acknowledge them as truth will not make God any less glorious or powerful or great than He really is. God can be like man in bodily form and still be as
        > magnificent as we have always thought Him to be. He can have a spirit-substance body and still be like man in size and shape; and He can have passions, feelings, desires, intelligence, and will power without being confined to man's limitation and sinfulness. Truly He is not only all that man, angels, and other beings are in this respect, but infinitely greater in everything; and man, in reality, is simply a miniature of God in attributes and powers.
        >
        >
        >
        > *******************IMAGE AND LIKENESS*******************
        >
        > The word translated "image" in the original Hebrew is "tselem" -lit. shade. Its usage proves it refers to outward form, not attributes!(See Gen.1:26-27; 5:3; 9:6; Ex.20:4; Lev.26:1; Ps.73:20; 106:19; Isa.40:19-20; 44:9-17; 45:20; 48:5; Jer.10:14; 51:17. cp. Rom.1:20; 1Cor.11:7;Jas.3:9)
        > The Hebrew word for likeness is "demooth", -lit. resemblance and it also refers to outward form as proved by its usage. (See Gen.1:26;5:1; 5:3; Isa.40;18; Ezek.1:5; 1:10; 1:13; 1:16; 1:22; 1:26; 1:28;8:2; 10:1; 10:11; 10:21; 10:22)
        > The Greek word "eikon" confirms the idea of bodily image and likeness, (See Mt.22:20;Acts 19:35; Rom.1:23; 11:4; 1Cor.11:7; 15:49;Col.1:15; Heb.10:1; Jas.3:9; Rev. 13:14-15)
        >
        > There is no question that man was made in the image and likeness of God in soul and spirit or moral and spiritual likeness (see Eph.4:22-24; Col.3:10),nor should there be with the body being also made in the image and likeness of God, as in all the above passages!
        >
        >
        > God is Spirit(Jn.4:24 NIV)
        > This "dynamic equivalence translation" phrase(see post#13,sub-title translations and post#17) is often used to prove God bodiless, for it implies God is bodiless and floating everywhere. Even so, it would be a false implication for even resurrected human bodies are called spiritual (see 1Cor.15:42-44),yet they will also be material(see Lk.24:39; Phil.3:21)! The original Gr. phrase in Jn.4:24 is "pneuma o Theos" -lit. God is a Spirit, and thus translate in the "verbal and formal equivalence translations". Obviously this does not imply God is bodiless and floating everywhere. What it does imply is that God is a Spirit being!
        >
        > ****************62 FACTS ABOUT GOD:*********************
        >
        > 1. HE IS a person (Job 13:8;Heb.1:3 NKJV)
        > 2. HE HAS a spirit body (Dan.7:9-14; 10:5-19; Isa.6;Ezek.1;Rev.4)
        > 3. Shape (Jn.5:37)
        > 4. Form (Num.12:1-8;Phil.2:5-7)
        > 5. Image and likeness (Gen.1:26;9:6;1Cor.11;7;Jas.3;9)
        > 6. Back parts (Ex.33:23)
        > 7. Heart (Gen.6:6;8:21)
        > 8. Hands (Ps.102:25-26;Heb.1:10)
        > 9. Fingers (Ps.8:3-6;Ex.31:18)
        > 10. Right hand (Rev.5:1-7)
        > 11. Mouth (Num.12:8;Isa.1:20)
        > 12. Lips (Isa.11:4; 30:27)
        > 13. Tongue (Isa. 30:27)
        > 14. Feet (Ex.24:10; Ezek.1:27)
        > 15. Eyes (Ps.11:4; 18:24; 3:18)
        > 16. Ears (Ps.18:6; 34:15)
        > 17. Head (Dan. 7:9)
        > 18. Hair (Dan. 7:9)
        > 19. Arms (Ps.44:3; Jn.12:38)
        > 20. Loins (Ezek. 1:26-28; 8:1-4)
        > 21. Voice (ps.29; Rev.10:3-4)
        > 22. Breath (Gen.2:7)
        > 23. Countenance (Ps.11;7)
        > 24. Soul (Mt. 12:18; Heb.10:38)
        > 25. Soul passions, such as: Grief (Gen.6:6)
        > 26. Anger (1Ki.11:9 cp. Eph.4:26)
        > 27. Repentance [regret](Gen.6:6)
        > 28. Jealousy (Ex.20:5; 34:14 cp.2Cor.11:2)
        > 29. Hate(Pr.6:16 cp.Rom.12:9)
        > 30. Love (Jn.3:16 cp.1Cor.13:4-6)
        > 31. Pity (Ps.103:13)
        > 32. Fellowship ((1Jn.1:1-7)
        > 33. Pleasure and delight (Ps.147:10)
        > 34. Joy (Neh.8:10; Gal.5:22)
        > 35. Peace (Gal.5:22)
        > 36. Longsuffering [patience] (Gal..5:22)
        > 37. Gentleness [kindness] (Gal.5:22)
        > 38. Goodness (Gal.5:22)
        > 39. Faithfulness (1Cor.10:13;Gal.5:22)
        > 40. Meekness [gentleness](Gal.5:23)
        > 41. Self-Control (Gal.5:23)
        > 42. Spirit (Ps.143:10;Isa.30:1)
        > 43. Spirit faculties, such as: Mind(Rom.11:34)
        > 44. Intelligence (Gen.1:26;Rom.11:33)
        > 45. Will (Rom. 8:27; 9:19)
        > 46. Power (Eph.1:19; 3:7; 3:20; Heb.1:3)
        > 47. Truth (Ps.91:4)
        > 48. Faith (Rom.4:17; 12:3)
        > 49. Hope (1Cor.13:13)
        > 50. Righteousness (Ps.45:4)
        > 51. Knowledge (Isa.11:2)
        > 52. Wisdom (1Tim.1:17)
        > 53. Discernment (Heb.4:12)
        > 54. Immutability [never change] (Heb.6:17)
        > 55. He wears clothes (Dan.7:9-14)
        > 56. Eats food (Gen.18:1-8; Ex.24:11)
        > 57. Rests (Gen.2:1-4;Heb.4:4)
        > 58. Dwells in a city (Jn.14:1-3)
        > 59. Sits on a throne (Isa.6;dan.7:9-11)
        > 60. Walks (Gen.3:8;18:1-18; 18:22; 18:33)
        > 61.Rides (Ps.18:10; 68:17; Ezek.1)
        > 62. Manifests other powers and bodily presence like other beings. He
        > has appeared to many as a person-to Adam and Eve(Gen.2:7; 2:19;
        > 2:22);Cain(Gen.4:6;4:9;4:16);Abraham(Gen.17:1-
        > 22;18:1;18:22;19:1);Isaac(Gen.26:2-4; 26:24);Jacob (Gen.28:12-15;
        > 32:24-32; 35:1);Moses(Ex.3:1-4;24:12-18; 33:9-11);Joshua (Josh.5:13-
        > 15);Samuel(1Sam.3:10;3:21)Elijah(1Ki.19:11-18);David(1Chr.21:16-17;
        > 2Chr.3:1);Isa.6);and others.
        >
        >
        >
        > **********************UNSEEN GOD********************
        >
        > "No one has ever seen God at any time, BUT THE SON." (Jn.1:18)
        > The Greek word for seen is "horao", and is used like our English "seen", which means to see with the eyes and with the mind. Here it is clear that it refers to seeing Him with the mind or fully comprehending Him, for many passages talk of seeing God with the eyes
        > (Gen.18:2,,33;32:24-30;Ex.24:10;33:11;Josh.5:13;isa.6;Ezek.24:10;Dan.7:9-14;;10:5-
        > 6;Acts7:56-59;Rev.4:2-5;5:1-7).
        > The verse could read "no man has ever comprehended or experienced God at any time in all His fullness', save the only begotten Son..He hath declared Him."
        > That Christ is the first to experience God in the fullness of the Holy Spirit is clear from Jn.3:34;Acts.0:38;Isa.11:1-2;61:1-2;Lk.4:16-18.
        >
        > "... no man can see me and yet live." (Ex.33:20)
        > Let us look at the context: In Ex.33:11,Moses saw God in a physical sense like so many others when God is not in His usual glory. But Moses wanted to see God "in His glory"(Ex.33:18).God simply stated this was impossible to see His glory as expressed in His face (Ex.33:20)and that it is only possible to see Him in His glory from his back side, but my face shall not be seen(Ex.33:21-23).That Moses and all of Israel saw God's glory in a limited sense is clear from Ex.16:10; 24:16-17;so the request by Moses in Ex.33:18 was for
        > something he had not yet seen. God's face in His usual glory and in the light that He lives in, no one has seen or can see.
        > (Ex.33:20;33:22;1Tim.6:16).Moses became an example of this impossibility of man seeing the face of God when He lives in a light, whom no one has seen or can see(1Tim.6:16),when his face could not be looked upon by Israel because of its brightness (Ex.34:29-35; 2Cor.
        > 3:6-18).
        >
        >
        > ***************************Ancient Superstition*******************
        >
        > The above statement and other like statements were no doubt the foundation of the ancient superstition that if one saw God he would die.(See Gen.32:30; Dt.5:24; Judg.13:22; Isa. 6:5;Rev.1:16-18)But many times God had proved this to be pure superstition, as the Scriptures show that not one of His appearances caused the death of anyone.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > **********************INVISIBILITY***********************
        >
        > "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created: things in Heaven and on earth, visible and invisible..."(Col.1:15-16 NIV)
        > Invisible things are made up of material substance which is visible in its own realm. Invisibility, therefore, consists more of distance and of concealment than substance. Anything out of eyesight range is invisible and or objects concealed are invisible. God, angels, and appear at will. They have been seen with the eyes many times, proving that invisibility must be understood with them as with all other invisible things that can become visible.(e.g. have a look through a microscope).
        > Spirit beings are obviously of a higher substance than mortals and ordinary material that we see. They are not limited to ordinary substance as we know it, for they can go through closed doors, walls, and other material objects, as proven by what is recorded in Scripture of angels and others. Even the material, spiritual, and immortalized body of Christ, a real flesh and bone body(Lk.24:39),can go through material walls without an opening (Jn.20:19;Lk.24:31; 24:35-43).
        >
        > **********************OMNI-PRESENTS**********************
        >
        > Everywhere present. God the Father, God the son, God the Holy Spirit are all present where there are beings with whom they have dealings; but their bodies are not omnipresent. All three go from place to place bodily as other beings in the universe do. We know this to be true, for many scriptures speak of each person of the Divine Trinity, as follows:
        > 1. God the Father(Gen.3:8; 11:5; 18:1-22; 18:33; 32:24-32; 35:13)
        > 2. Jesus Christ, the son of the Father. He came from Heaven into the world as a person distinct from both the Father and the Holy Spirit-to live here, then returned to Heaven and the Father to be seated on His right hand side ,from whence He will come again.(Acts 1:11;Heb.1:3)
        > 3.The holy Spirit,. He is spoken of as moving upon creation (Gen.1:2), coming into THE MIDST (2Chr.20:14), descending from heaven upon Jesus (Mt.3:16;Mk.1:10;Lk.3:21-22), and abiding with or departing from men (Jn.1:32;1 Sam.16:14). He was to come into the world to abide among men (Jn.14:16; 14:26; 15:26; 16:7-11). Omnipresence then is governed by relationship and knowledge of God. Like the presence of someone being felt by another who is thousands of miles away, so it is with the presence of God among men(1Cor.5:3-4).
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > *********************INDWELLING*************************
        > The doctrine of interpenetration in Scripture, hat is, persons entering into each other, as Paul said of Corinthians and Philippians being in his heart(2Cor.7:3;Phil.1:7);God being in Christ (2Cor.5:19);Christ being in God(Jn.14:20);God and Christ being in each other(Jn.14:10-11);men being in both the Father and the Son (1Jn.2:24);men being in Christ(2Cor.5:17);men and the Spirit being in each other(Rom.8:9);Christ being in men(Col.1:27;Rom.8:10);man and Christ being in each other (Jn.14:20); all creation being in God(Acts17:28); and Satan entering into men(Lk.22:3;Jn.13:27).In all the above examples, it means in union with, consecration to the same end-one in mind, purpose, and life, not bodily entrance into.
        > Hence, Satan, an angelic being having his own spirit body, entering into Judas simply means
        > Judas submitted to Satan's temptation to betray Jesus. He became one with Satan, like men become one in spirit with God when joined to Him in consecration (see 1Cor.6:17).In fact, idiomatic interpenetration language is often used today. Who has never heard a teenager say, "I'm into this musician or this actor"?
        >
      • Patrick Navas
        Hello Everyone, I finally finished my response to Bowman s last post. Hopefully, after this, Rob can concisely break down why his view is the best supported
        Message 3 of 13 , Oct 14, 2009
        Hello Everyone,
         
        I finally finished my response to Bowman's last post. Hopefully, after this, Rob can concisely break down why his view is the best supported one and why mine is not, scripturally speaking.
         
        Best wishes,
         
        Patrick

      • R.hero
        I wrote this a few years back and had it posted on my group.I should have edited better. sorry.
        Message 4 of 13 , Oct 14, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          I wrote this a few years back and had it posted on my group.I should have edited better. sorry.

          --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <faithhasitsreasons@...> wrote:
          >
          > R.hero,
          >
          > I'm curious. Did you derive any of this material from another source, perhaps another website? I'd like to know the context in which this material was developed.
          >
          > In Christ's service,
          > Rob Bowman
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "R.hero" <rdhero@> wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > > If God did not mean all He said about Himself in so many passages then why did He say such things? They certainly do not add to a true understanding of Him if the passages do not mean what they say.
          > > Why would God, in hundreds of places, refer to Himself as having bodily parts, soul passions, and spirit faculties if He does not have them? Would it be necessary for Him to tell us He has such in order to reveal that He does not have eyes, hands, mouth, ears, and other bodily members?
          > > It is logical not to question the plain, simple statements of Scripture about God and His Body; it is logical to understand them in the same literal way that we understand like statements about angels, men, and other beings.
          > > We have no Bible authority to do otherwise. Rom.1:20 alone proves this!
          > > The truth is that God has revealed Himself to be seen by the natural eyes of men repeatedly; and Bible writers have given a clear record concerning what He is like. The many personal descriptions of God's body and thousands of plain declarations regarding His soul passions and spirit attributes should not be denied or interpreted contrary to
          > > what is written; they should be believed in all simplicity.
          > > The constant rejection of revealed facts about God certainly will not give us a true understanding of Him. To acknowledge them as truth will not make God any less glorious or powerful or great than He really is. God can be like man in bodily form and still be as
          > > magnificent as we have always thought Him to be. He can have a spirit-substance body and still be like man in size and shape; and He can have passions, feelings, desires, intelligence, and will power without being confined to man's limitation and sinfulness. Truly He is not only all that man, angels, and other beings are in this respect, but infinitely greater in everything; and man, in reality, is simply a miniature of God in attributes and powers.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > *******************IMAGE AND LIKENESS*******************
          > >
          > > The word translated "image" in the original Hebrew is "tselem" -lit. shade. Its usage proves it refers to outward form, not attributes!(See Gen.1:26-27; 5:3; 9:6; Ex.20:4; Lev.26:1; Ps.73:20; 106:19; Isa.40:19-20; 44:9-17; 45:20; 48:5; Jer.10:14; 51:17. cp. Rom.1:20; 1Cor.11:7;Jas.3:9)
          > > The Hebrew word for likeness is "demooth", -lit. resemblance and it also refers to outward form as proved by its usage. (See Gen.1:26;5:1; 5:3; Isa.40;18; Ezek.1:5; 1:10; 1:13; 1:16; 1:22; 1:26; 1:28;8:2; 10:1; 10:11; 10:21; 10:22)
          > > The Greek word "eikon" confirms the idea of bodily image and likeness, (See Mt.22:20;Acts 19:35; Rom.1:23; 11:4; 1Cor.11:7; 15:49;Col.1:15; Heb.10:1; Jas.3:9; Rev. 13:14-15)
          > >
          > > There is no question that man was made in the image and likeness of God in soul and spirit or moral and spiritual likeness (see Eph.4:22-24; Col.3:10),nor should there be with the body being also made in the image and likeness of God, as in all the above passages!
          > >
          > >
          > > God is Spirit(Jn.4:24 NIV)
          > > This "dynamic equivalence translation" phrase(see post#13,sub-title translations and post#17) is often used to prove God bodiless, for it implies God is bodiless and floating everywhere. Even so, it would be a false implication for even resurrected human bodies are called spiritual (see 1Cor.15:42-44),yet they will also be material(see Lk.24:39; Phil.3:21)! The original Gr. phrase in Jn.4:24 is "pneuma o Theos" -lit. God is a Spirit, and thus translate in the "verbal and formal equivalence translations". Obviously this does not imply God is bodiless and floating everywhere. What it does imply is that God is a Spirit being!
          > >
          > > ****************62 FACTS ABOUT GOD:*********************
          > >
          > > 1. HE IS a person (Job 13:8;Heb.1:3 NKJV)
          > > 2. HE HAS a spirit body (Dan.7:9-14; 10:5-19; Isa.6;Ezek.1;Rev.4)
          > > 3. Shape (Jn.5:37)
          > > 4. Form (Num.12:1-8;Phil.2:5-7)
          > > 5. Image and likeness (Gen.1:26;9:6;1Cor.11;7;Jas.3;9)
          > > 6. Back parts (Ex.33:23)
          > > 7. Heart (Gen.6:6;8:21)
          > > 8. Hands (Ps.102:25-26;Heb.1:10)
          > > 9. Fingers (Ps.8:3-6;Ex.31:18)
          > > 10. Right hand (Rev.5:1-7)
          > > 11. Mouth (Num.12:8;Isa.1:20)
          > > 12. Lips (Isa.11:4; 30:27)
          > > 13. Tongue (Isa. 30:27)
          > > 14. Feet (Ex.24:10; Ezek.1:27)
          > > 15. Eyes (Ps.11:4; 18:24; 3:18)
          > > 16. Ears (Ps.18:6; 34:15)
          > > 17. Head (Dan. 7:9)
          > > 18. Hair (Dan. 7:9)
          > > 19. Arms (Ps.44:3; Jn.12:38)
          > > 20. Loins (Ezek. 1:26-28; 8:1-4)
          > > 21. Voice (ps.29; Rev.10:3-4)
          > > 22. Breath (Gen.2:7)
          > > 23. Countenance (Ps.11;7)
          > > 24. Soul (Mt. 12:18; Heb.10:38)
          > > 25. Soul passions, such as: Grief (Gen.6:6)
          > > 26. Anger (1Ki.11:9 cp. Eph.4:26)
          > > 27. Repentance [regret](Gen.6:6)
          > > 28. Jealousy (Ex.20:5; 34:14 cp.2Cor.11:2)
          > > 29. Hate(Pr.6:16 cp.Rom.12:9)
          > > 30. Love (Jn.3:16 cp.1Cor.13:4-6)
          > > 31. Pity (Ps.103:13)
          > > 32. Fellowship ((1Jn.1:1-7)
          > > 33. Pleasure and delight (Ps.147:10)
          > > 34. Joy (Neh.8:10; Gal.5:22)
          > > 35. Peace (Gal.5:22)
          > > 36. Longsuffering [patience] (Gal..5:22)
          > > 37. Gentleness [kindness] (Gal.5:22)
          > > 38. Goodness (Gal.5:22)
          > > 39. Faithfulness (1Cor.10:13;Gal.5:22)
          > > 40. Meekness [gentleness](Gal.5:23)
          > > 41. Self-Control (Gal.5:23)
          > > 42. Spirit (Ps.143:10;Isa.30:1)
          > > 43. Spirit faculties, such as: Mind(Rom.11:34)
          > > 44. Intelligence (Gen.1:26;Rom.11:33)
          > > 45. Will (Rom. 8:27; 9:19)
          > > 46. Power (Eph.1:19; 3:7; 3:20; Heb.1:3)
          > > 47. Truth (Ps.91:4)
          > > 48. Faith (Rom.4:17; 12:3)
          > > 49. Hope (1Cor.13:13)
          > > 50. Righteousness (Ps.45:4)
          > > 51. Knowledge (Isa.11:2)
          > > 52. Wisdom (1Tim.1:17)
          > > 53. Discernment (Heb.4:12)
          > > 54. Immutability [never change] (Heb.6:17)
          > > 55. He wears clothes (Dan.7:9-14)
          > > 56. Eats food (Gen.18:1-8; Ex.24:11)
          > > 57. Rests (Gen.2:1-4;Heb.4:4)
          > > 58. Dwells in a city (Jn.14:1-3)
          > > 59. Sits on a throne (Isa.6;dan.7:9-11)
          > > 60. Walks (Gen.3:8;18:1-18; 18:22; 18:33)
          > > 61.Rides (Ps.18:10; 68:17; Ezek.1)
          > > 62. Manifests other powers and bodily presence like other beings. He
          > > has appeared to many as a person-to Adam and Eve(Gen.2:7; 2:19;
          > > 2:22);Cain(Gen.4:6;4:9;4:16);Abraham(Gen.17:1-
          > > 22;18:1;18:22;19:1);Isaac(Gen.26:2-4; 26:24);Jacob (Gen.28:12-15;
          > > 32:24-32; 35:1);Moses(Ex.3:1-4;24:12-18; 33:9-11);Joshua (Josh.5:13-
          > > 15);Samuel(1Sam.3:10;3:21)Elijah(1Ki.19:11-18);David(1Chr.21:16-17;
          > > 2Chr.3:1);Isa.6);and others.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > **********************UNSEEN GOD********************
          > >
          > > "No one has ever seen God at any time, BUT THE SON." (Jn.1:18)
          > > The Greek word for seen is "horao", and is used like our English "seen", which means to see with the eyes and with the mind. Here it is clear that it refers to seeing Him with the mind or fully comprehending Him, for many passages talk of seeing God with the eyes
          > > (Gen.18:2,,33;32:24-30;Ex.24:10;33:11;Josh.5:13;isa.6;Ezek.24:10;Dan.7:9-14;;10:5-
          > > 6;Acts7:56-59;Rev.4:2-5;5:1-7).
          > > The verse could read "no man has ever comprehended or experienced God at any time in all His fullness', save the only begotten Son..He hath declared Him."
          > > That Christ is the first to experience God in the fullness of the Holy Spirit is clear from Jn.3:34;Acts.0:38;Isa.11:1-2;61:1-2;Lk.4:16-18.
          > >
          > > "... no man can see me and yet live." (Ex.33:20)
          > > Let us look at the context: In Ex.33:11,Moses saw God in a physical sense like so many others when God is not in His usual glory. But Moses wanted to see God "in His glory"(Ex.33:18).God simply stated this was impossible to see His glory as expressed in His face (Ex.33:20)and that it is only possible to see Him in His glory from his back side, but my face shall not be seen(Ex.33:21-23).That Moses and all of Israel saw God's glory in a limited sense is clear from Ex.16:10; 24:16-17;so the request by Moses in Ex.33:18 was for
          > > something he had not yet seen. God's face in His usual glory and in the light that He lives in, no one has seen or can see.
          > > (Ex.33:20;33:22;1Tim.6:16).Moses became an example of this impossibility of man seeing the face of God when He lives in a light, whom no one has seen or can see(1Tim.6:16),when his face could not be looked upon by Israel because of its brightness (Ex.34:29-35; 2Cor.
          > > 3:6-18).
          > >
          > >
          > > ***************************Ancient Superstition*******************
          > >
          > > The above statement and other like statements were no doubt the foundation of the ancient superstition that if one saw God he would die.(See Gen.32:30; Dt.5:24; Judg.13:22; Isa. 6:5;Rev.1:16-18)But many times God had proved this to be pure superstition, as the Scriptures show that not one of His appearances caused the death of anyone.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > **********************INVISIBILITY***********************
          > >
          > > "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created: things in Heaven and on earth, visible and invisible..."(Col.1:15-16 NIV)
          > > Invisible things are made up of material substance which is visible in its own realm. Invisibility, therefore, consists more of distance and of concealment than substance. Anything out of eyesight range is invisible and or objects concealed are invisible. God, angels, and appear at will. They have been seen with the eyes many times, proving that invisibility must be understood with them as with all other invisible things that can become visible.(e.g. have a look through a microscope).
          > > Spirit beings are obviously of a higher substance than mortals and ordinary material that we see. They are not limited to ordinary substance as we know it, for they can go through closed doors, walls, and other material objects, as proven by what is recorded in Scripture of angels and others. Even the material, spiritual, and immortalized body of Christ, a real flesh and bone body(Lk.24:39),can go through material walls without an opening (Jn.20:19;Lk.24:31; 24:35-43).
          > >
          > > **********************OMNI-PRESENTS**********************
          > >
          > > Everywhere present. God the Father, God the son, God the Holy Spirit are all present where there are beings with whom they have dealings; but their bodies are not omnipresent. All three go from place to place bodily as other beings in the universe do. We know this to be true, for many scriptures speak of each person of the Divine Trinity, as follows:
          > > 1. God the Father(Gen.3:8; 11:5; 18:1-22; 18:33; 32:24-32; 35:13)
          > > 2. Jesus Christ, the son of the Father. He came from Heaven into the world as a person distinct from both the Father and the Holy Spirit-to live here, then returned to Heaven and the Father to be seated on His right hand side ,from whence He will come again.(Acts 1:11;Heb.1:3)
          > > 3.The holy Spirit,. He is spoken of as moving upon creation (Gen.1:2), coming into THE MIDST (2Chr.20:14), descending from heaven upon Jesus (Mt.3:16;Mk.1:10;Lk.3:21-22), and abiding with or departing from men (Jn.1:32;1 Sam.16:14). He was to come into the world to abide among men (Jn.14:16; 14:26; 15:26; 16:7-11). Omnipresence then is governed by relationship and knowledge of God. Like the presence of someone being felt by another who is thousands of miles away, so it is with the presence of God among men(1Cor.5:3-4).
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > *********************INDWELLING*************************
          > > The doctrine of interpenetration in Scripture, hat is, persons entering into each other, as Paul said of Corinthians and Philippians being in his heart(2Cor.7:3;Phil.1:7);God being in Christ (2Cor.5:19);Christ being in God(Jn.14:20);God and Christ being in each other(Jn.14:10-11);men being in both the Father and the Son (1Jn.2:24);men being in Christ(2Cor.5:17);men and the Spirit being in each other(Rom.8:9);Christ being in men(Col.1:27;Rom.8:10);man and Christ being in each other (Jn.14:20); all creation being in God(Acts17:28); and Satan entering into men(Lk.22:3;Jn.13:27).In all the above examples, it means in union with, consecration to the same end-one in mind, purpose, and life, not bodily entrance into.
          > > Hence, Satan, an angelic being having his own spirit body, entering into Judas simply means
          > > Judas submitted to Satan's temptation to betray Jesus. He became one with Satan, like men become one in spirit with God when joined to Him in consecration (see 1Cor.6:17).In fact, idiomatic interpenetration language is often used today. Who has never heard a teenager say, "I'm into this musician or this actor"?
          > >
          >
        • Rob
          Patrick, How disappointing. You ignored two-thirds of my paper to which you were supposedly responding. My response can be found here:
          Message 5 of 13 , Oct 14, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Patrick,

            How disappointing. You ignored two-thirds of my paper to which you were supposedly responding. My response can be found here:

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biblicalapologetics/files/

            The description identifies it as a response to your paper, with today's date for ease of reference.

            Since you have had difficulty navigating the site in the past, I will send you the paper in a personal email.

            In Christ's service,
            Rob Bowman


            --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Navas <patrick_navas@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hello Everyone,
            >
            > I finally finished my response to Bowman's last post. Hopefully, after this, Rob can concisely break down why his view is the best supported one and why mine is not, scripturally speaking.
            >
            > Best wishes,
            >
            > Patrick
            >
          • R.hero
            hope you dont mind Patrick said Snip Scripture never says that Jesus had a `preexistent, divine glory as the Lord Jehovah. r.hero Micah 5:1-2 (King James
            Message 6 of 13 , Oct 14, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              hope you dont mind


              Patrick said
              Snip
              "Scripture never says that Jesus had a `preexistent, divine glory as the Lord Jehovah.'"

              r.hero
              Micah 5:1-2 (King James Version)
              Micah 5
              1Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek.
              2But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
              The person who was to be born in bethlehem of the tribe of judah of the nation of isreal was to be God—an eternal Being whose going forth have been from everlasting( Mic 5:2;Isa.9:6-7Jn.1:1-3,14;Heb1:8; Rev.1;8;2:8;22:13. As man he had a beginning, was begotten,and was brought into being, but as God He had no beginning, he was not begotten, and did not come into being. Being from everlasting or eternal is a glory only God can claim.

              Patrick said
              Snip
              As already noted, John 1:1 does not say that "Jesus" had a divine glory in pre-existence, but says that "the word" was "with God (pros ton theon)" and was either "God" or "a god,"
              r.hero
              I was born greek and Jn.1:1 clear says was God. Those who claim to know Greek and translate Jn.1:1 to say "a god" are simply doing so for alternative motives.IMHO.

              Patrick said
              Snip
              In Isaiah 9:6 the Messiah is called "mighty God," and this makes him the Almighty Jehovah (in spite of every clear instance in Isaiah where the Messiah is portrayed as Jehovah's servant and as a distinct figure from Him)?
              r.hero
              Genesis 19:24 (King James Version)
              24Then the LORD(Heb.Jehovah) rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire FROM the LORD (Heb.Jehovah) out of heaven;
              So here is a clear scripture that shows two distinct persons—one on earth and one in heaven, both called Jehovah. As man the second person of the Trinity was Jehovah #1's servant.

              Messiah, like the name Jesus has no reference to deity, but to humanity.



              Robert
              Snip

              Fair enough; let's see how Jesus responds. "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am" (v. 58). Well now! Jesus here seems to go along with their understanding that he was claiming to be as old as Abraham.

              r.hero
              "I am" is one of the eternal names of God.

              Exodus 3:14-15 (King James Version)
              14And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
              15And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
              Jesus in Jn8:58 is is claiming to be God!





              --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Navas <patrick_navas@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hello Everyone,
              >
              > I finally finished my response to Bowman's last post. Hopefully, after this, Rob can concisely break down why his view is the best supported one and why mine is not, scripturally speaking.
              >
              > Best wishes,
              >
              > Patrick
              >
            • Patrick Navas
              Rob, Just as you, in the beginning of this discussion, did not respond to every point in my paper (which is fine), I, likewise, decided to focus on the points
              Message 7 of 13 , Oct 14, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Rob,
                 
                Just as you, in the beginning of this discussion, did not respond to every point in my paper (which is fine), I, likewise, decided to focus on the points I felt most necessary to respond to, in the interest of time and energy. I'm trying to narrow the discussion down to the actual evidence for either view. Which view has the most scriptural/exegetical evidence?
                 
                In reference to your point about White, White himself said that the "glory" of John 12:41 can only be understood as the "glory" of Isaiah 6. I took that to mean the "glory" of John 12:41 can only be understood as the "glory" of Isaiah 6. I'm sure, if he wanted to, White can come back and say that the "glory" can apply to the earthly Jesus as well. But I was only responding White's published scholarly discussion on this, which I assumed represented his view on John 12:41. White does not give any suggestion that the "glory" of John 12:41 can refer to anything but the "glory" of Isaiah 6. So I simply took him at his word and responded accordingly.
                 
                But, again, this discussion has gone back-and-forth quite a bit. Perhaps we can narrow it down to the primary points. As I asked in my paper, what exactly makes your view more probable than mine?
                 
                If there is any other point you want me to respond to, just let me know exactly which one.
                 
                Patrick
                 
                 

                From: Rob <faithhasitsreasons@...>
                To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Wed, October 14, 2009 8:39:48 PM
                Subject: [biblicalapologetics] Another reply to Patrick Navas regarding John 12:41

                 

                Patrick,

                How disappointing. You ignored two-thirds of my paper to which you were supposedly responding. My response can be found here:

                http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/biblicalap ologetics/ files/

                The description identifies it as a response to your paper, with today's date for ease of reference.

                Since you have had difficulty navigating the site in the past, I will send you the paper in a personal email.

                In Christ's service,
                Rob Bowman

                --- In biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com, Patrick Navas <patrick_navas@ ...> wrote:
                >
                > Hello Everyone,
                >
                > I finally finished my response to Bowman's last post. Hopefully, after this, Rob can concisely break down why his view is the best supported one and why mine is not, scripturally speaking.
                >
                > Best wishes,
                >
                > Patrick
                >

              • Rob
                Patrick, Maybe you should read my last two papers again before asking me once again why I think my view is more probable than yours. In Navas v. Williams on
                Message 8 of 13 , Oct 14, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Patrick,

                  Maybe you should read my last two papers again before asking me once again why I think my view is more probable than yours. In "Navas v. Williams on John 12:41 -- Response to Navas's Defense of His Citations of Williams," see especially the bottom of page 13, the middle of page 15, and most of pages 16-18. In my paper just posted today, "Patrick Navas's Selective Response on John 12:41," see especially the bottom half of page 4.

                  You totally missed the point regarding James White. I didn't dispute that White explained John 12:41 with reference to Isaiah 6. Go back and read what I said about this again. See points (2) and (3) on pages 5-6 of "Navas v. Williams on John 12:41 -- Response to Navas's Defense of His Citations of Williams," as well as the bottom of pages 7 and 11. I tire of repeating myself.

                  If I sound cranky, I plead sickness as an excuse (I have flu symptoms).

                  By the way, I will now take your posts off moderated status.

                  In Christ's service,
                  Rob Bowman





                  --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Navas <patrick_navas@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Rob,
                  >
                  > Just as you, in the beginning of this discussion, did not respond to every point in my paper (which is fine), I, likewise, decided to focus on the points I felt most necessary to respond to, in the interest of time and energy. I'm trying to narrow the discussion down to the actual evidence for either view. Which view has the most scriptural/exegetical evidence?
                  >
                  > In reference to your point about White, White himself said that the "glory" of John 12:41 can only be understood as the "glory" of Isaiah 6. I took that to mean the "glory" of John 12:41 can only be understood as the "glory" of Isaiah 6. I'm sure, if he wanted to, White can come back and say that the "glory" can apply to the earthly Jesus as well. But I was only responding White's published scholarly discussion on this, which I assumed represented his view on John 12:41. White does not give any suggestion that the "glory" of John 12:41 can refer to anything but the "glory" of Isaiah 6. So I simply took him at his word and responded accordingly.
                  >
                  > But, again, this discussion has gone back-and-forth quite a bit. Perhaps we can narrow it down to the primary points. As I asked in my paper, what exactly makes your view more probable than mine?
                  >
                  > If there is any other point you want me to respond to, just let me know exactly which one.
                  >
                  > Patrick
                  >
                  >  
                  >  
                  >
                  > ________________________________
                  >
                  > From: Rob <faithhasitsreasons@...>
                  > To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: Wed, October 14, 2009 8:39:48 PM
                  > Subject: [biblicalapologetics] Another reply to Patrick Navas regarding John 12:41
                  >
                  > Patrick,
                  >
                  > How disappointing. You ignored two-thirds of my paper to which you were supposedly responding. My response can be found here:
                  >
                  > http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/biblicalap ologetics/ files/
                  >
                  > The description identifies it as a response to your paper, with today's date for ease of reference.
                  >
                  > Since you have had difficulty navigating the site in the past, I will send you the paper in a personal email.
                  >
                  > In Christ's service,
                  > Rob Bowman
                  >
                  > --- In biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com, Patrick Navas <patrick_navas@ ...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Hello Everyone,
                  > >
                  > > I finally finished my response to Bowman's last post. Hopefully, after this, Rob can concisely break down why his view is the best supported one and why mine is not, scripturally speaking.
                  > >
                  > > Best wishes,
                  > >
                  > > Patrick
                  > >
                  >
                • christian_skeptic
                  Of course God in the Bible is anthropomorpized. The Bible was written by men and the best man can conceive of is himself. If men were to create God, he would
                  Message 9 of 13 , Oct 15, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Of course God in the Bible is anthropomorpized. The Bible was written by men and the best man can conceive of is himself. If men were to create God, he would do so in his own image.
                    Heinz

                    --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "R.hero" <rdhero@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > If God did not mean all He said about Himself in so many passages then why did He say such things?
                  • Rob
                    Dear R.hero, I m going to offer some comments rebutting your case for anthropomorphism. I apologize in advance if my comments are too blunt; I mean no offense.
                    Message 10 of 13 , Oct 16, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear R.hero,

                      I'm going to offer some comments rebutting your case for anthropomorphism. I apologize in advance if my comments are too blunt; I mean no offense. I've been sick all week and I need to keep my remarks as brief as I can.

                      You wrote:

                      << If God did not mean all He said about Himself in so many passages then why did He say such things? They certainly do not add to a true understanding of Him if the passages do not mean what they say. >>

                      Your assumption here is that a literalist approach to interpreting the Bible is the proper hermeneutical method. By "literalist" I mean assuming that the Bible never uses figures of speech or employs non-literal genres. The problem is that such a hermeneutic cannot be sustained consistently. I will illustrate my point below.

                      You wrote:

                      << Why would God, in hundreds of places, refer to Himself as having bodily parts, soul passions, and spirit faculties if He does not have them? Would it be necessary for Him to tell us He has such in order to reveal that He does not have eyes, hands, mouth, ears, and other bodily members? >>

                      The answer to your question is that God speaks this way in Scripture because he is speaking through and to human beings, and he is using their own human idioms and other figures of speech.

                      You wrote:

                      << God can be like man in bodily form and still be as magnificent as we have always thought Him to be. He can have a spirit-substance body and still be like man in size and shape; and He can have passions, feelings, desires, intelligence, and will power without being confined to man's limitation and sinfulness. Truly He is not only all that man, angels, and other beings are in this respect, but infinitely greater in everything; and man, in reality, is simply a miniature of God in attributes and powers. >>

                      Your argument for a simple literalist reading is already running into some problems. You say in the same paragraph that God has the same "size" as man and that man is "a miniature of God." These assertions cannot both be taken literally. Either man is the same size as God or man is a miniature of God (if we are speaking literally both times); he cannot literally be both.

                      Furthermore, after arguing that we ought to take these biblical anthropomorphisms literally, you are fudging (again, sorry to be so blunt) by describing God as having "a spirit-substance body." If the Bible says that God has an arm, feet, eyes, hair, mouth, lips, tongue, etc., as you claim later in your post, on what basis do you then claim that these are spirit in substance, rather than flesh? Are not arms, eyes, hair, and so forth physical, fleshly substances? Assuming we are reading these biblical descriptions literally, shouldn't we accept these bodily features as physical, solid, material features, like ours?

                      You wrote:

                      *******************IMAGE AND LIKENESS*******************

                      The word translated "image" in the original Hebrew is "tselem" -lit. shade. Its usage proves it refers to outward form, not attributes!(See Gen.1:26-27; 5:3; 9:6; Ex.20:4; Lev.26:1; Ps.73:20; 106:19; Isa.40:19-20; 44:9-17; 45:20; 48:5; Jer.10:14; 51:17. cp. Rom.1:20; 1Cor.11:7;Jas.3:9)
                      The Hebrew word for likeness is "demooth", -lit. resemblance and it also refers to outward form as proved by its usage. (See Gen.1:26;5:1; 5:3; Isa.40;18; Ezek.1:5; 1:10; 1:13; 1:16; 1:22; 1:26; 1:28;8:2; 10:1; 10:11; 10:21; 10:22)
                      The Greek word "eikon" confirms the idea of bodily image and likeness, (See Mt.22:20;Acts 19:35; Rom.1:23; 11:4; 1Cor.11:7; 15:49;Col.1:15; Heb.10:1; Jas.3:9; Rev. 13:14-15)

                      There is no question that man was made in the image and likeness of God in soul and spirit or moral and spiritual likeness (see Eph.4:22-24; Col.3:10),nor should there be with the body being also made in the image and likeness of God, as in all the above passages!

                      (end of quote from your post)

                      There are a couple of problems with your argument here.

                      1. An image is a visible representation of something else. In this case, human beings are described as created in or as the visible representation of God. But the Bible tells us explicitly that God is invisible (Rom. 1:20; Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:17; Heb. 11:27). Thus, man is created in or as the visible representation of the invisible God. The preeminent Man, Jesus Christ, is "the image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15), meaning that God, who is by nature invisible, has made himself visible in Jesus Christ, who is deity embodied (Col. 1:19; 2:9). These passages should alert us to understand man's creation in the image of God to mean that man visibly represents God, not that God is himself anthropomorphic.

                      Later you try to explain away these references to God as invisible to be akin to microscopic material being invisible to the naked eye, or to be merely a matter of being out of range or outside our field of vision. But this won't work. First, God is clearly not microscopic, so we can forget about that comparison. Second, God's invisibility is described as a matter of his *nature* rather than his *location* (this is clear in all of the above passages; also note the contrast between "visible" and "invisible" created beings in Col. 1:16, immediately following Col. 1:15). Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God, not because Christ is closer, but because he is physical, having become flesh (John 1:14) to redeem us and reveal God the Father to us.

                      2. In its ancient Semitic context, the Old Testament references to man being created in God's image do not mean that God is himself a man or is anthropomorphic. In that ancient culture, a king (such as a pharaoh) could be regarded as the "image" of the god whom he represented. Genesis applies this metaphor to all human beings; we are all created to represent God on the earth, not just the king. There is some support for this interpretation in the immediate context of Genesis 1; right after saying that God created man in his image, Genesis says that God told man to exercise dominion over the creatures of the earth (Gen. 1:26-28). The language in its context has nothing to do with God being anthropomorphic.

                      You wrote:

                      God is Spirit(Jn.4:24 NIV)
                      This "dynamic equivalence translation" phrase . . . is often used to prove God bodiless, for it implies God is bodiless and floating everywhere. Even so, it would be a false implication for even resurrected human bodies are called spiritual (see 1Cor.15:42-44),yet they will also be material(see Lk.24:39; Phil.3:21)! >>

                      There is a difference between being a spirit and being spiritual. For example, Jesus was not a (mere) spirit (Luke 24:39), but his resurrection body, like believers' future resurrection bodies, was "spiritual" (1 Cor. 15:42-44).

                      You wrote:

                      << 1. HE IS a person (Job 13:8;Heb.1:3 NKJV) >>

                      That God is a person is not in dispute; that he is an embodied person is.

                      << 2. HE HAS a spirit body (Dan.7:9-14; 10:5-19; Isa.6;Ezek.1;Rev.4) >>

                      Oddly, none of these passages says this. Biblically speaking, there is no such term as "spirit body" and I would argue also no such thing.

                      << 3. Shape (Jn.5:37)
                      4. Form (Num.12:1-8;Phil.2:5-7) >>

                      "Visible form" or "outward appearance" are better translations of EIDOS in John 5:37. Jesus' point, I think, is that the Jewish authorities in his day had never seen God's visible self-manifestations as Moses and the Israelites had in the Old Testament.

                      << 5. Image and likeness (Gen.1:26;9:6;1Cor.11;7;Jas.3;9) >>

                      See above.

                      << 6. Back parts (Ex.33:23) >>

                      There is something odd about taking this language literally. In context, God tells Moses that he will put his hand over Moses while he passes by, and then, when he takes his hand away, Moses will see God's back. That's some large hand there! Do you take the size implied by this description literally?

                      << 7. Heart (Gen.6:6;8:21) >>

                      The language here does not refer to a physical organ but to the inner core of a person's mind or feelings. The language is easily understood as describing God in human terms.

                      << 8. Hands (Ps.102:25-26;Heb.1:10) >>

                      Again, those must be extremely large hands, if God used them to make the entire universe!

                      << 9. Fingers (Ps.8:3-6;Ex.31:18)
                      10. Right hand (Rev.5:1-7) >>

                      I wonder why the Bible never refers to God's left hand? Do you suppose he doesn't have one?

                      << 11. Mouth (Num.12:8;Isa.1:20) >>

                      The Bible also says that God has "nostrils" (Ex. 15:8; 2 Sam. 22:16; Ps. 18:15), and David describes God as having smoke coming from his nostrils and fire from his mouth (2 Sam. 22:9; Ps. 18:8). Oh my goodness! God is a dragon!

                      << 12. Lips (Isa.11:4; 30:27)
                      13. Tongue (Isa. 30:27) >>

                      Lips and tongues are so obviously physical, fleshly components of a material body. An animal or a human makes sounds by pressing the lips together or by manipulating his tongue in his mouth. Sound is itself a phenomenon of the physical world; it occurs in the form of sound waves moving through air, which is itself physical. Yet you pull back from taking this all literally enough to conclude that God is a material being.

                      Isaiah 11:4 is referring, by the way, to the Messiah. Do you suppose that his mouth is a literal "rod" with which he will literally "strike the earth," and that he will slay the wicked by literally blowing on them?

                      << 14. Feet (Ex.24:10; Ezek.1:27) >>

                      Although God can appear in human form when he chooses, this does not mean that God literally has feet. Literal feet implies literal legs and that God must literally walk to get from one place to another (except of course when he isn't taking his chariot). The passage in Ezekiel is quite careful to make clear that this was a symbolic vision; what he says he saw was "the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD" (Ezek. 1:28), not a direct visual examination of nthe actual LORD himself.

                      << 15. Eyes (Ps.11:4; 18:24; 3:18) >>

                      Eyes are wonderful organs, but they have rather severe limits. For example, one cannot see around corners or behind solid objects with literal eyes. Biblical references to God's eyes do not support such limitations; he "sees" all, knows all, without having to scan literally every square inch of the earth with literal eyes.

                      << 16. Ears (Ps.18:6; 34:15) >>

                      Similar points can be made about God having "ears" as his having eyes.

                      << 17. Head (Dan. 7:9)
                      18. Hair (Dan. 7:9) >>

                      Apparently, God's hair was on fire. Do you suppose the fire ever got put out? Is God now bald because his hair literally burned?

                      << 19. Arms (Ps.44:3; Jn.12:38) >>

                      See the earlier comments about God's hands.

                      << 20. Loins (Ezek. 1:26-28; 8:1-4) >>

                      See the earlier comment about Ezekiel 1.

                      << 21. Voice (ps.29; Rev.10:3-4) >>

                      See earlier comments about the lips and tongue being used to create sound vibrations in the air. Does God have air to breathe and in which to speak? Where did that air come from? Is it "spirit air" as distinguished from physical air?

                      << 22. Breath (Gen.2:7) >>

                      See earlier comments about mouth, lips, tongue, and voice.

                      I'll stop here, as this covers all of your arguments specifically for God being anthropomorphic.

                      In Christ's service,
                      Rob Bowman
                    • R.hero
                      Hi Rob, Hope you are well. R.hero,
                      Message 11 of 13 , Oct 20, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Rob,

                        Hope you are well.

                        R.hero,

                        << If God did not mean all He said about Himself in so many passages then why
                        did He say such things? They certainly do not add to a true understanding of Him
                        if the passages do not mean what they say. >>

                        Rob,

                        Your assumption here is that a literalist approach to interpreting the Bible is
                        the proper hermeneutical method. By "literalist" I mean assuming that the Bible
                        never uses figures of speech or employs non-literal genres. The problem is that
                        such a hermeneutic cannot be sustained consistently. I will illustrate my point
                        below.

                        r.hero

                        Your definition of literalist is actually known as letterism.The literal method of interpretation is the correct method.

                        snip

                        There are eight basic approaches to Scripture:

                        Legalism:
                        (1) Adding to the Scriptures and enforcing it as Scripture
                        (2) Carrying out the letter of the law ignoring the spirit of it

                        Liberalism:
                        Taking away, casting doubt, or sugar-coating the Scriptures

                        Modernism:
                        Updating the Bible

                        Allegorism:
                        Secret meanings behind the literal words

                        Mysticism:
                        Experiencing the Bible

                        Rationalism:
                        Everything must be reasonable to the modern mind

                        Letterism:
                        Stresses the literal sense of Scripture including that of figurative expressions

                        Literalism:
                        Stresses the literal sense of Scripture excluding that of figurative expressions


                        However, in modern evangelicalism there are two main methods of interpretation; literal (fundamental) and allegorical (spiritual). These two are contrary one to the other, for one seeks to interpret the Bible, its classes of people, and its prophecies literally, while the other seeks to interpret some or all of the Bible, its classes of people, and its prophecies allegorically. One can find that the main difference between `dispensational theology' and `covenant theology' traces its roots to this distinction. Distinguishing between literal and allegorical interpretation is also the main difference between premillennialists and amillennialists. Premillennialists believe in a literal interpretation of the Scriptures and amillennialists believe in an allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures, at least in their view of prophetic passages.

                        G1. Literal
                        This method of interpretation is the correct mode of interpretation. One should not come to a passage expecting a non-literal interpretation.

                        We should interpret literally because:

                        A. This method is objective, and protects from presuppositions

                        B. This method safeguards from men's imaginations and desires

                        C. It is only in this method that one can believe that what God said is what He actually meant

                        D. This method also allows for the interpretation to be proved (tested) by other scriptures (comparing scripture with scripture)

                        E. This method also allows for the interpretation to be proved (tested) by non-scriptural means (i.e. geography, science, philosophy…)

                        F. Literal interpretation of words is the normal interpretation in every language

                        G. Literal interpretation seeks to find clarity in grammar and definition of words

                        H. If we were to interpret allegorically then God would have given us a guideline by which we were to allegorize

                        I. Comparatives always base themselves on literal truth and never on some unfounded idea

                        J. The Bible intricately fits together literally

                        K. When the New Testament refers to the Old Testament, it always refers to it literally

                        L. Every prophecy regarding Christ's first coming was fulfilled literally

                        M. Every prophecy that has been completely fulfilled to date has been fulfilled literally

                        Literalism does not negate the idea of there being comparatives used in scripture to enhance the literal teaching. However, it must be understood that comparatives enhance the literal truth of the passage; they do not expel it. `Literalism' is not to be confused with `letterism.' `Letterism' is the idea that there are no spiritual teachings in the Scriptures. Literalism does not understand that God has wings like a bird (Psalm 36:7), that Christ is an actual lamb (John 1:29). That's `letterism.'

                        Any passage/text/phrase/word of scripture is to be taken as literal unless:

                        A. It is absolutely absurd to understand it literally

                        B. It would disturb the context, structure, or flow of the text

                        C. It would not harmonize with the culture in which it was written

                        D. It would conflict with the general teachings of the Bible

                        E. It is a figure of speech/figurative expression (like, as), sarcasm, or symbol. But all these will seek to expound or explain on a literal truth. We must understand the literal truth that figurative expressions convey. But if it is a figure of speech, write down the meaning as it will most likely tie into a Biblical principle. ex: "hate thy mother, and father…"

                        F. It is a (or part of a) rhetorical argument

                        However, the general rule of thumb is, If the literal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense.

                        The literal method seeks to give the same meaning to each word as it has outside of the Scriptures in contemporary and historical usage. Sometimes it is referred to as the grammatical-historical method.


                        G2. Allegorical / Spiritual
                        Allegorical interpretation seeks to find alternative meanings to clearly stated words or ideas. In other words, what is on the surface is not the real meaning, but what is hidden becomes the real meaning. Allegorical interpretation believes that beneath the letter or the obvious is the real meaning of the passage. Those who interpret Scripture allegorically, assign secondary meanings to the literal words that are not expressed or implied by the text.

                        Many frantically turn to 1 Corinthians 2:13 in order to substantiate their belief in allegorical interpretation. It is with great amusement that we see this verse not allegorized when it is interpreted. "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." This verse is not advocating a "spiritual" interpretation ("man's wisdom") as is clearly noticed with proper exegesis.

                        Reasons for not interpreting allegorically:

                        1. This method relies solely on the interpreter's speculation, doctrinal position, church's position or personal background

                        2. If the text does not say what it means, and the words do not carry their normal definitions, than anyone can say the text means anything they want it to. Believing that the text does not say what it means is heretical.

                        3. If the meaning can be anything we want it to be then there is no way to prove or test absolute truth in many areas of scripture using this method, for things have to always represent something beyond what is clearly stated.
                        The Bible says that "every way of man is right in his own eyes" (Proverbs 21:2). With this in mind, if we try to determine for ourselves what the text means then we are naturally going to curve everything to our own perceptions and understandings, such is true with the covenant theology.

                        4. Because it is necessary to be taught how to imagine greater truths than what the text says, leaving the greatest truths to be found by those who have the greatest imagination or mystical perception

                        5. If the meaning cannot be discerned through the normal understanding of language, how can it be discerned?

                        6. If the plain language of the text is only to be a springboard for greater truth, it is impossible to come to a unanimous conclusion with others

                        7. The interpreter is stuck with trying to figure out this great scheme that God has deployed to determine which passages are to be read as literal and which passages are to be read as allegorical

                        8. Allegorical interpretation leads to utter confusion

                        Some valuable truths may be taught allegorically but not at the expense of what the text actually says. However, if one refuses to see that the Scriptures should be interpreted literally, then there is no need to continue reading this book as one can/will spiritualize the meanings anyways


                        r.hero

                        << Why would God, in hundreds of places, refer to Himself as having bodily
                        parts, soul passions, and spirit faculties if He does not have them? Would it be
                        necessary for Him to tell us He has such in order to reveal that He does not
                        have eyes, hands, mouth, ears, and other bodily members? >>


                        rob

                        The answer to your question is that God speaks this way in Scripture because he
                        is speaking through and to human beings, and he is using their own human idioms
                        and other figures of speech.


                        r.hero

                        using idiomatic language is one thing but to say he has bodily parts in order to reveal that he doesn't makes no sense.




                        r.hero

                        << God can be like man in bodily form and still be as magnificent as we have
                        always thought Him to be. He can have a spirit-substance body and still be like
                        man in size and shape; and He can have passions, feelings, desires,
                        intelligence, and will power without being confined to man's limitation and
                        sinfulness. Truly He is not only all that man, angels, and other beings are in
                        this respect, but infinitely greater in everything; and man, in reality, is
                        simply a miniature of God in attributes and powers. >>

                        rob

                        Your argument for a simple literalist reading is already running into some
                        problems. You say in the same paragraph that God has the same "size" as man and
                        that man is "a miniature of God." These assertions cannot both be taken
                        literally. Either man is the same size as God or man is a miniature of God (if
                        we are speaking literally both times); he cannot literally be both.

                        r.hero

                        You are confusing literalism with letterism ( see note above)


                        rob

                        Furthermore, after arguing that we ought to take these biblical
                        anthropomorphisms literally, you are fudging (again, sorry to be so blunt) by
                        describing God as having "a spirit-substance body." If the Bible says that God
                        has an arm, feet, eyes, hair, mouth, lips, tongue, etc., as you claim later in
                        your post, on what basis do you then claim that these are spirit in substance,
                        rather than flesh? Are not arms, eyes, hair, and so forth physical, fleshly
                        substances? Assuming we are reading these biblical descriptions literally,
                        shouldn't we accept these bodily features as physical, solid, material features,
                        like ours?

                        r.hero
                        like I said in my post
                        snip
                        Spirit beings are obviously of a higher substance than mortals and ordinary
                        material that we see. They are not limited to ordinary substance as we know it,
                        for they can go through closed doors, walls, and other material objects, as
                        proven by what is recorded in Scripture of angels and others. Even the material,
                        spiritual, and immortalized body of Christ, a real flesh and bone
                        body(Lk.24:39),can go through material walls without an opening
                        (Jn.20:19;Lk.24:31; 24:35-43).


                        r.hero
                        *******************IMAGE AND LIKENESS*******************

                        The word translated "image" in the original Hebrew is "tselem" -lit. shade. Its
                        usage proves it refers to outward form, not attributes!(See Gen.1:26-27; 5:3;
                        9:6; Ex.20:4; Lev.26:1; Ps.73:20; 106:19; Isa.40:19-20; 44:9-17; 45:20; 48:5;
                        Jer.10:14; 51:17. cp. Rom.1:20; 1Cor.11:7;Jas.3:9)
                        The Hebrew word for likeness is "demooth", -lit. resemblance and it also refers
                        to outward form as proved by its usage. (See Gen.1:26;5:1; 5:3; Isa.40;18;
                        Ezek.1:5; 1:10; 1:13; 1:16; 1:22; 1:26; 1:28;8:2; 10:1; 10:11; 10:21; 10:22)
                        The Greek word "eikon" confirms the idea of bodily image and likeness, (See
                        Mt.22:20;Acts 19:35; Rom.1:23; 11:4; 1Cor.11:7; 15:49;Col.1:15; Heb.10:1;
                        Jas.3:9; Rev. 13:14-15)

                        There is no question that man was made in the image and likeness of God in soul
                        and spirit or moral and spiritual likeness (see Eph.4:22-24; Col.3:10),nor
                        should there be with the body being also made in the image and likeness of God,
                        as in all the above passages!

                        (end of quote from your post)

                        rob
                        There are a couple of problems with your argument here.

                        1. An image is a visible representation of something else. In this case, human
                        beings are described as created in or as the visible representation of God. But
                        the Bible tells us explicitly that God is invisible (Rom. 1:20; Col. 1:15; 1
                        Tim. 1:17; Heb. 11:27). Thus, man is created in or as the visible representation
                        of the invisible God. The preeminent Man, Jesus Christ, is "the image of the
                        invisible God" (Col. 1:15), meaning that God, who is by nature invisible, has
                        made himself visible in Jesus Christ, who is deity embodied (Col. 1:19; 2:9).
                        These passages should alert us to understand man's creation in the image of God
                        to mean that man visibly represents God, not that God is himself
                        anthropomorphic.

                        r.hero
                        An invisible God -- a metaphisical nature/existence creating from nothing is nonsesne for 0x0=0. Such a God can only exist in ones head. IMHO



                        r.hero
                        << 6. Back parts (Ex.33:23) >>

                        rob
                        There is something odd about taking this language literally. In context, God
                        tells Moses that he will put his hand over Moses while he passes by, and then,
                        when he takes his hand away, Moses will see God's back. That's some large hand
                        there! Do you take the size implied by this description literally?


                        r.hero

                        lol, It does not need to be a large hand if God was passing by Moses at a close range. ps That passage of God proclaiming his name is my favorite:)



                        r.hero
                        << 8. Hands (Ps.102:25-26;Heb.1:10) >>

                        rob

                        Again, those must be extremely large hands, if God used them to make the entire
                        universe!

                        r.hero
                        What form God had prior to the universe is unknown, but it had to be of a material substance in order to create.



                        r.hero

                        << 9. Fingers (Ps.8:3-6;Ex.31:18)
                        10. Right hand (Rev.5:1-7) >>

                        rob
                        I wonder why the Bible never refers to God's left hand? Do you suppose he
                        doesn't have one?

                        r.hero

                        lol. I bet he does:)

                        r.hero

                        << 11. Mouth (Num.12:8;Isa.1:20) >>

                        rob

                        The Bible also says that God has "nostrils" (Ex. 15:8; 2 Sam. 22:16; Ps. 18:15),
                        and David describes God as having smoke coming from his nostrils and fire from
                        his mouth (2 Sam. 22:9; Ps. 18:8). Oh my goodness! God is a dragon!

                        r.hero
                        lol,

                        have a good night Rob
                      • Rob
                        R.hero, I wrote: Your assumption here is that a literalist approach to interpreting the Bible is the proper hermeneutical method. By literalist I mean
                        Message 12 of 13 , Oct 20, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          R.hero,

                          I wrote:

                          Your assumption here is that a literalist approach to interpreting the Bible is the proper hermeneutical method. By "literalist" I mean assuming that the Bible never uses figures of speech or employs non-literal genres. The problem is that such a hermeneutic cannot be sustained consistently. I will illustrate my point below.

                          You replied:

                          << Your definition of literalist is actually known as letterism.The literal method of interpretation is the correct method. >>

                          I am very familiar with the scholarly literature on hermeneutics (and have taught hermeneutics courses many times) and your use of the word "letterism" is, at best, nonstandard. In any case, if you want to use the word, your approach to defending anthropomorphism is an example of "letterism."

                          You wrote:

                          << There are eight basic approaches to Scripture: >>

                          I'll skip the lecture, if you don't mind. :)

                          Many older conservative evangelical textbooks on hermeneutics described their approach as a "literal" hermeneutic, meaning one that takes a "grammatical-historical" approach to interpretation. I have no objection to such an approach. However, this is not the same thing as assuming that the text is not using any figures of speech.

                          You wrote (it sounds like you are quoting):

                          << Literalism does not understand that God has wings like a bird (Psalm 36:7), that Christ is an actual lamb (John 1:29). That's `letterism.' >>

                          Fine. So is thinking that God made the earth by scooping up dirt in his hands.

                          You wrote:

                          << using idiomatic language is one thing but to say he has bodily parts in order to reveal that he doesn't makes no sense. >>

                          The Bible does not say that God has bodily parts. It refers to God's hand, eyes, etc., but does not say, "God has bodily parts, including eyes, hands, etc."

                          I wrote:

                          Your argument for a simple literalist reading is already running into some problems. You say in the same paragraph that God has the same "size" as man and that man is "a miniature of God." These assertions cannot both be taken literally. Either man is the same size as God or man is a miniature of God (if we are speaking literally both times); he cannot literally be both.

                          You replied:

                          << You are confusing literalism with letterism ( see note above) >>

                          No, you are refusing to apply your literalism consistently; it is actually a selective literalism.

                          You wrote:

                          << An invisible God -- a metaphisical nature/existence creating from nothing is nonsesne for 0x0=0. Such a God can only exist in ones head. IMHO >>

                          That's all it is, I'm afraid -- your opinion. You are not engaging the biblical evidence I presented for my position.

                          I wrote:

                          There is something odd about taking this language literally. In context, God tells Moses that he will put his hand over Moses while he passes by, and then, when he takes his hand away, Moses will see God's back. That's some large hand there! Do you take the size implied by this description literally?

                          You replied:

                          << lol, It does not need to be a large hand if God was passing by Moses at a close range. >>

                          If he was passing by Moses at close range, putting his hand up would not keep Moses from seeing him.

                          I wrote:

                          The Bible also says that God has "nostrils" (Ex. 15:8; 2 Sam. 22:16; Ps. 18:15), and David describes God as having smoke coming from his nostrils and fire from his mouth (2 Sam. 22:9; Ps. 18:8). Oh my goodness! God is a dragon!

                          All you said in response was:

                          << lol, >>

                          I think I've been had. Apparently, I took your arguments more seriously than I should have.

                          In Christ's service,
                          Rob Bowman
                        • R.hero
                          Hi Rob I did not mean to give the impression that I am not taking this seriously. Obviously God is not a dragon and it is figurative speech. How do we know
                          Message 13 of 13 , Oct 20, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi Rob

                            I did not mean to give the impression that I am not taking this seriously. Obviously God is not a dragon and it is figurative speech. How do we know this? well the many descriptions of God and the fact we are in his image ad we are not dragons or do not have wings. Therefore we can distinguish the figurative speech. See what I mean?

                            --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <faithhasitsreasons@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > R.hero,
                            >
                            > I wrote:
                            >
                            > Your assumption here is that a literalist approach to interpreting the Bible is the proper hermeneutical method. By "literalist" I mean assuming that the Bible never uses figures of speech or employs non-literal genres. The problem is that such a hermeneutic cannot be sustained consistently. I will illustrate my point below.
                            >
                            > You replied:
                            >
                            > << Your definition of literalist is actually known as letterism.The literal method of interpretation is the correct method. >>
                            >
                            > I am very familiar with the scholarly literature on hermeneutics (and have taught hermeneutics courses many times) and your use of the word "letterism" is, at best, nonstandard. In any case, if you want to use the word, your approach to defending anthropomorphism is an example of "letterism."
                            >
                            > You wrote:
                            >
                            > << There are eight basic approaches to Scripture: >>
                            >
                            > I'll skip the lecture, if you don't mind. :)
                            >
                            > Many older conservative evangelical textbooks on hermeneutics described their approach as a "literal" hermeneutic, meaning one that takes a "grammatical-historical" approach to interpretation. I have no objection to such an approach. However, this is not the same thing as assuming that the text is not using any figures of speech.
                            >
                            > You wrote (it sounds like you are quoting):
                            >
                            > << Literalism does not understand that God has wings like a bird (Psalm 36:7), that Christ is an actual lamb (John 1:29). That's `letterism.' >>
                            >
                            > Fine. So is thinking that God made the earth by scooping up dirt in his hands.
                            >
                            > You wrote:
                            >
                            > << using idiomatic language is one thing but to say he has bodily parts in order to reveal that he doesn't makes no sense. >>
                            >
                            > The Bible does not say that God has bodily parts. It refers to God's hand, eyes, etc., but does not say, "God has bodily parts, including eyes, hands, etc."
                            >
                            > I wrote:
                            >
                            > Your argument for a simple literalist reading is already running into some problems. You say in the same paragraph that God has the same "size" as man and that man is "a miniature of God." These assertions cannot both be taken literally. Either man is the same size as God or man is a miniature of God (if we are speaking literally both times); he cannot literally be both.
                            >
                            > You replied:
                            >
                            > << You are confusing literalism with letterism ( see note above) >>
                            >
                            > No, you are refusing to apply your literalism consistently; it is actually a selective literalism.
                            >
                            > You wrote:
                            >
                            > << An invisible God -- a metaphisical nature/existence creating from nothing is nonsesne for 0x0=0. Such a God can only exist in ones head. IMHO >>
                            >
                            > That's all it is, I'm afraid -- your opinion. You are not engaging the biblical evidence I presented for my position.
                            >
                            > I wrote:
                            >
                            > There is something odd about taking this language literally. In context, God tells Moses that he will put his hand over Moses while he passes by, and then, when he takes his hand away, Moses will see God's back. That's some large hand there! Do you take the size implied by this description literally?
                            >
                            > You replied:
                            >
                            > << lol, It does not need to be a large hand if God was passing by Moses at a close range. >>
                            >
                            > If he was passing by Moses at close range, putting his hand up would not keep Moses from seeing him.
                            >
                            > I wrote:
                            >
                            > The Bible also says that God has "nostrils" (Ex. 15:8; 2 Sam. 22:16; Ps. 18:15), and David describes God as having smoke coming from his nostrils and fire from his mouth (2 Sam. 22:9; Ps. 18:8). Oh my goodness! God is a dragon!
                            >
                            > All you said in response was:
                            >
                            > << lol, >>
                            >
                            > I think I've been had. Apparently, I took your arguments more seriously than I should have.
                            >
                            > In Christ's service,
                            > Rob Bowman
                            >
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.