Theologic Musings: How do we reconcile science with Biblical trustworthiness?

Faith & Science Conversation
,
174

What do you mean by “another”? This is the only one that has been offered up so far. But since I haven’t discussed it with you personally, can you tell me with 100% certainty that “YHWH” even means “I am”? Were you aware that the name given to Moses in Exodus 3:14 could just as easily mean “I will be what I will be”? Click on the footnote…

14God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.h This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”

But let’s assume for argument’s sake that we could somehow know that it is most definitely “I am”. And since nobody today says, “I am bless you” after someone sneezes, but we instead ask “God”, “Yahweh”, “the LORD” etc for blessings, let’s use one of those for the “I am” in John 8:58. Ready?

Jesus claimed to know something about Abraham. Good so far?
The Jews tried to rebut Jesus by claiming he couldn’t know anything about Abraham since he wasn’t even 50 years old (and Abraham had long since been dead). Still will me?

Now… how exactly did Jesus refute their claim that he couldn’t have known Abraham because he wasn’t even 50 years old yet?

  1. Before Abe came into existence, I was already living, thereby refuting your claim that I’m not even 50 years old.

  2. Before Abe came into existence, GOD!

Do you see it, Dale? Choose any name of YHWH that you want… it still amounts to Jesus saying, “Before Abe… NAME OF GOD!”

Notice that Jesus doesn’t say anything else about God. He doesn’t say, “Before Abe, I was already existing as I AM”, right? He didn’t say, “I am I AM”, right?

And anyone with a lick of common sense can see that in order for Jesus to have been making a claim of BEING “the great I AM”, he would have had to say that last one I listed above. And guess what? If Jesus had said, “Before Abe came into existence, I am I AM” - like he would have had to do for it to be a declaration of being God, you can bet your bottom dollar that every single English translator would properly translate the first present tense “I am” as “I was/I have been” so that it would say, “I have been I AM” and make sense to us in English!!! :sweat_smile:

And finally, maybe you can be the one to give a valid answer to the question nobody else has been able to answer… If Jesus claimed to BE God Almighty in 8:58 as you claim, then why wasn’t Jesus charged with blasphemy for claiming to be God? Why was he only charged with claiming to be the Son of God?

But here’s your chance, Dale. The text is: “Before Abraham came into existence, I am.”

What does proclaiming the supposed personal name of God at the end of the statement mean? What is Jesus saying about the God who’s name he just proclaimed?

175

In addition to “I and the Father are one.”

That’s the whole point. He is timeless and self-existent like God the Father. I’m sorry you don’t get it. Be careful you are not idolizing yourself and your personal translation… or is it your church’s? If the latter, could you tell us which?

176

Try to do better, Dale. No one will take you seriously if your answer to every scripture that refutes your understanding is, “It’s metaphorical/parable/figurative/poetry”. Try harder. Show me WHY these particular psalms being songs/poetry makes a clear statement about other gods into a statement about something other than other gods. And what is that something other? When David says God created man a little lower than the gods, what is the “poetical meaning” of “the gods”? What is David trying to say God made us a little lower than in reality, Dale?

177

Now you’re being funny with your irony.

178

Yes. I believe the Bible is the authority on everything it teaches about.

The correct and honest answer is that you learned it from the scriptures. So I ask again… what do we test the spirits against if not scripture?

Yes… accurate history.

I’m asking you about Psalm 82 in particular right now. Please answer my question directly and honestly. Who are the “sons of the Most High” that Yahweh calls gods in that psalm? What is this “assembly of gods” that Yahweh presides over?

Remember Richard, my claim from the outset was that the Bible teaches us about many different gods, and the Most High God of all the other ones. There cannot be a Most High God if there are not less high gods. There cannot be a God of other gods if there exist no other gods for Him to be the God of.

So you and Dale can claim that the psalms are poetry and not to be trusted if you want, but the psalms are still a part of the Bible, and therefore you should both admit that what I claimed from the outset is true: The Bible does indeed teach about a bunch of different gods - it’s just that Dale and I don’t accept those particular verses as true or real or important or whatever.

Can you say that, Richard? Can you bring yourself to say that the Bible DOES teach about a bunch of different gods, just like I said and you tried to refute?

179

Why not? What started that?

No, Yahweh is one transliteration of what YHWH may have been pronounced as. Yahweh is a representation (perhaps even dead on) of how God’s personal name sounds out of a human mouth. Lord and Father are titles, not personal names.

Some of it, to be sure. Much of it is direct quotes of God Himself, or of God’s heavenly representatives. But according to Paul, all of it is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching others what is and isn’t true.

I accept the kingdom of God and the teachings of the scriptures as a little child - as per Jesus’ instructions. The “realities” you think burden you are not really realities, Richard. They are just things which contradict scripture that you think you are obligated to believe because “smart people” tell you to believe them.

180

The Psalms are a very important part of the Bible, but they are still poetry and to be understood as such. Hyper-literal understandings are misconstrued and poorer for it.

181

We know the other gods are spirit sons of Yahweh from other scriptures, such as Psalm 82. Of course, I’m happy to hear what you think the gods in Ps 8:5 are. Do tell.

183

They’re not “my” gods. But a third of the other gods are running this world with their leader, Satan. (2 Cor 4:4, Eph 6:12) The other two thirds are in heaven in the presence of their own God, Yahweh. Jesus is one of the latter, and currently sits at the right hand of his and our God in heaven.

184

Yes, “one” can be used in more than one sense. But you didn’t answer my question, Dale. Do you think the Godhead is about to gain a bunch of other members? Yes or no? If not, then it’s clear that being “one with” another doesn’t have to mean what you think it does in the case of Jesus and the Father, right? And since it doesn’t necessarily mean that, and since we know from direct scripture that our God and Father is also Jesus’ God and Father, and that Jesus is our brother and joint heir of the good things of the Father, it’s fairly obvious that it absolutely doesn’t mean what you thought it did.

What gave you the impression that it did mean what you thought it did? How did you come to that conclusion in the first place, knowing that “one can be used in more than one sense”?

185

Nor you mine. Is what you are presuming to expound your own or your church’s?

186

I share scriptures as they are. You share your assertions that what those scriptures clearly say are not really what they mean.

Richard, according to the scripture itself, does David say God made us a little lower than the gods? Yes or no?

Richard, according to the scripture itself, does Jesus say that our God is also his own God? Yes or no?

See? I’m the one just sharing what the scriptures actually say. When you don’t like what they say, you try to discredit those particular scriptural teachings in the name of “seeing further”.

This is another example of the same. Long after thousands had seen Jesus with their own human eyes, John wrote that no man had ever seen God at any time. You are attempting to discredit what John himself wrote by “seeing further” and imagining that John really meant, “No man had seen God WITHOUT HIM BEING CLOTHED IN HUMANITY.”

But that’s not what John said, is it? You’re adding to the Bible because, as it was written, it doesn’t support the man-made tradition you’ve come to hold so close to your heart.

Why not?

I see those things and know what they are. But how does the Bible’s inclusion of parables and metaphors alter the text of John 1:18 so that “no man has seen God at any time” becomes “men were able to see and touch God Almighty after he clothed himself in humanity”?

This is our difference, Richard…

Me: But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!”

You: But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live - unless I clothe myself with humanity, which I will one day do!”

Me: No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is closest to the Father, he has made Him known.

You: No man had seen God at any time until He clothed himself in humanity and dwelt among us as His own Son.

My understanding is based on what the scriptures actually say. Yours is based on things you wish the scripture said. And when they don’t say those things, you just mentally add them into the scriptures and pretend that the scriptures actually do teach what you want them to teach.

187

Your understanding is hyper-literal.

Do not be wise in your own eyes
Proverbs 3:7

1 Like
188

Yet you have no scriptural nor logical reason to believe that statement means they are one Godhead (sans the Holy Spirit for some reason) any more than you have a scriptural or logical reason to believe that Jesus’ disciples being one with them means that they will become part of the one Godhead, right? Can you admit that Dale? Can you admit that you want this statement to be saying that Jesus is the very God he is the Son of, but that it clearly doesn’t actually come right out and say what you want it to be saying?

Check these out…

Gen 15:7… "I am the LORD who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans…

Gen 28:13… "I am the LORD, the God of your grandfather Abraham…

Exo 6:2… God spoke to Moses and said to him, "I am the LORD…

Exo 6:6… Therefore, tell the Israelites, 'I am the LORD…

Exo 6:7… Then you will know that I am the LORD your God…

Exo 6:8… I am the LORD!

Exo 6:29… he said to him, "I am the LORD. Tell Pharaoh king of Egypt…

Exo 7:5… Then the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD…

Exo 7:17… "By this you will know that I am the LORD…

Exo 8:22… that you may know that I am the LORD in the midst of this land.

Do you see it? The term “the LORD” is just a placeholder for God’s personal name, which you say is “I AM”. So now replace “the LORD” with “I AM” in all of those verses, and what do you notice? Do you notice that the phase “I am” - in and of itself - isn’t a declaration that somebody IS the LORD? In order for “the great I AM” to declare that He IS “the great I AM”, He needs to add a SECOND “I am” into the statement.

Take Ex 7:5, for example. Yahweh couldn’t just say, “Then the Egyptians will know that I AM!”, right? Because that would be nonsensical. So instead, Yahweh must every time add another “I am” into His declaration, and say, “I am I AM!”

Likewise, in order for Jesus to make a declaration that he IS “the great I AM”, he would have also had to include the second “I am” and say, “Before Abe existed, I am I AM!”

Now, if you can find an instance where Yahweh claims to BE Yahweh with a single “I am”, then we can take a closer look into John 8:58. But since there is no instance of that, and the Bible is absolutely loaded with Yahweh declaring to BE Yahweh with the double, “I am I AM” (assuming “I AM” is the meaning of YHWH in the first place), then it is more than clear that Jesus couldn’t have possibly made a declaration of BEING Yahweh with a single “I am”.

So not only do I “get it” - I’ve been delving into this verse for over a decade, and have thoroughly debunked the “Yahweh declaration” claim from every possible angle.

By the way, you didn’t tell me why the Jews ended up charging Jesus with claiming to be the Son of God when he clearly (according to you) declared himself to BE God Himself in front of everyone. Can you come up with a VALID reason for the lesser and, quite frankly, contradictory “Son of God” charge when the coup de grâce was laying there right at their feet the whole time?

I don’t belong to any religious organization or church. I’ve spent years reading the Bible on my own, and honing my understanding on discussion forums like this one, where disagreements cause me to research ever more deeply into the scriptures.

189

Okay. You made yourself feel better with your flippant remark. Now how about addressing the crux of the post that you didn’t quote? Here it is again…

Please address the bolded part this time. Thanks.

190

And what exactly does it mean to understand them as poetry, Dale? Does it mean to understand them as not describing literal and real things? Does it mean to understand them as made up parables?

Please explain EXACTLY what you mean by understanding them as poetry. Thanks.

191

No thanks. Been there done that.

We could talk about conspiracy theory though, and go around in circles forever on another subject that tells us how you think, or not.

193

This topic seems to have run its course.

2 Likes