Let Us Make Man: The Revelation

[A.W. Bowman]

Just because a Oneness [or Trinitarian] may know Biblical languages is no sign truth will prevail in him.

Another excellent observation! Yet, the converse is also true. This is especially true as I noted above: "for those who would be Bible teachers". Like the arguments centering in and around the the nonexistent term, Godhead. One really should study the three different Greek terms used to create this one English word. Then, teach that concept from the Greek based understanding!

Also note again the poor translation of the word, perfect as used in Ps 102 (also above), using Strong's numbers and a good Hebrew-English Lexicon for starters. The grammatical usages of the two Hebrew terms are also important to note.

---

Added note: There are no gods in the Godhead - not even one. It is a number of attributes of God which identifies three different aspects of His deity, not something that contains God. Now, that should cause a little heartburn in a doctrine or two.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by HaShaliach

Another excellent observation! Yet, the converse is also true. This is especially true as I noted above: "for those who would be Bible teachers". Like the arguments centering in and around the the nonexistent term, Godhead. One really should study the three different Greek terms used to create this one English word. Then, teach that concept from the Greek based understanding!

Also note again the poor translation of the word, perfect as used in Ps 102 (also above), using Strong's numbers and a good Hebrew-English Lexicon for starters. The grammatical usages of the two Hebrew terms are also important to note.

---

Added note: There are no gods in the Godhead - not even one.

Hi Bro,

I dont mean to sound dismissive about learning the languages. It certainly would give an advantage. Yet here is my point.

I have literally spent hundreds of hours reading material from Hebrew readers debateing whether the Messiahs name should be Yeshua, Yashua, Yehoshua, or Yeshu.

All of them proving their point by the Hebrew!

So yes I wish I had time to learn the Hebrew.

[A.W. Bowman]

So, in the final analysis:

Do we want to support doctrines - or do we want truth? They are not necessarily the same thing, regardless of the language in which they are expressed.

[A.W. Bowman]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Hi Bro,

I dont mean to sound dismissive about learning the languages. It certainly would give an advantage. Yet here is my point.

I have literally spent hundreds of hours reading material from Hebrew readers debateing whether the Messiahs name should be Yeshua, Yashua, Yehoshua, or Yeshu.

All of them proving their point by the Hebrew!

So yes I wish I had time to learn the Hebrew.

LOLOL I understand your concern! Most excellent point! Really!

[A.W. Bowman]

You identified one of the major problem in this type of investigation - in the Hebrew the placing of letters, words, and points can change the entire meaning and application of words. When attempting to express these words in English we get the kinds of attempt you just posted. AND - each of these phonetic terms for "Jesus" may be correct.

Added note:

Did you know that there are at least SIX different "correct" translations of De 6:4? This is why a "teacher" must have a foundation in what he/she is attempting to teach - and why there is a greater judgment for those who teach.

[RevDWW]

I've heard that in the Hebrew, plurality, "let us", is used to denote the greatness/vastness of God.

[A.W. Bowman]

As a post script to all of my comments:

We have just gone through an exercise that demonstrates why there is so little understanding and agreement concerning even the basic biblical doctrines (not including those doctrines developed by men).

Everyone, it seems, feels like God has have moved upon them and given them a particular revelation of truth. This then leads to our judging others for NOT experiencing that same truth, with the "same experience". While one may "experience" truth, truth is not an experience! An over statement? Look to our splits and schisms for the evidence.

Look to the "plan of salvation" as understood by the Oneness camp. There are at least three - perhaps four different competing camps.Ask some one what the gospel is and most likely they will recite Acts 2:38. Ask them to explain the difference between the gospel of the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven and they relate to both Acts 2:21 & 38 and expect a fist fight.

An error preached by a well known and respected spiritual leader is usually accepted without question. That preaching may then be turned into a teaching and published as a doctrine. Then that error will be defended unto death, rather than for anyone to admit they were wrong. Truth, on the other hand, is often times dismissed in favor of a more comfortable/acceptable doctrine. Again, I submit that our many different positions taken and held - even to the point of condemning brethren to hell - are all over differences in what we all call "the truth", and judging Trinitarians as not possessing that which we cannot, ourselves, agree on! Now, gentle folks - what is wrong with that picture? Now, consider it from God's point of view!

We judge all others according to our understanding of Scripture, with the assumed beliefs that our understanding is the "correct" and acceptable understanding. Many of use will judge others even to hell because they hole to a "false doctrine", when I demonstrated in a very small way, most of us also hold to at least one "false doctrine". Have we then not set ourselves up for judgment according to how we have judged others? It is one thing to contend for the truth as we perceive it, it is something else to compare ourselves to others and to judge them as being spiritually deficient and/or in doctrinal error, when we, ourselves, neither possess nor uphold all of the truth of (or in) the Bible.

Enough.

[A.W. Bowman]

Originally Posted by RevDWW

I've heard that in the Hebrew, plurality, "let us", is used to denote the greatness/vastness of God.

Sometimes it can be so used. The plurality is most often used to denote that "absolute unity" of the immeasurable (uncountable, unidentifiable) attributes or elements that constitutes the one true God of Israel.

We have over the decades (almost a hundred years now) worked so hard to discredit the Assemblies of God for kicking the Jesus-name baptizers out of their fellowship, that we have taken the entire Bible and placed into a concept of non-divisible singularity, ignoring or deliberately altering the word of God to support our position. The truth? Both the Hebrew language, the words of Jesus Himself, and that of the N.T. writers plainly tell that God is a plurality. So do every Hebrew scholar and Jewish religious teacher from Moses on to this very day. But, three gods, three separate individuals running around doing their own thing, etc. Absolutely not!

But, because of our self-imposed blinders, we are also missing out on the richness of who and what our God is. We all (yep me too) seem to fall into the trap of self justification (needing to be right in our own eyes) rather than contending for the actual truth. What makes this so sad - and dangerous - is that when we approach the defense of our position, even when we are supporting God's truth, we turn that truth into a lie through our self justifications! Consider the temptations of Jesus for examples not acted upon.

Oops - again I fear that I have "over" answered the question. Sorry.

[rrford]

Uhm, I am not quite persuaded that the "image" refers to the angels.

Here is the condensed version as I do not have time to dig out the full version.

I believe the first form of man that God saw was the person of Jesus Christ who was "the firstborn of all creation" and "the express image of God's invisible person."

That being said, God created Adam to look like what Christ would one day look like. Therfore, "Let us make man in our image" is saying "Let us form man in the image that the physical body of Christ will one day have."

[A.W. Bowman]

One last note: Not to leave anyone with a wrong impression:

NO! I do not believe that one must be a linguist in order to translate or interpret the Bible. Being one, of course would help. However, being willing to take advantage of the language tools that we have at our disposal today is of necessity, in order to properly teach the word of God - as He intended.

The evidence: Setting aside the original languages, we contend over English words to the point of "is it singular or is it plural" (is it name or names)? If we did not, then there would be no Oneness movement today.

Words have meaning - even those in English.