Who is Jesus?

[RGacky3]

“Literally” that’s not what the text says.

umm ... yes Literally it does ... Do you want me to find the Hebrew trasliteration? The light was called "day" and the darkenss was called "night," I'll get the text if you waht to deny it.

Can there be heat with light?

Yes.

Where is the light coming from?

(btw I find it hillareous that you would have the audacity to try and use science to defend 6 day creationism).

Huh?
This comment is “arbitrary”.

yeah, you decide that chapter one's use of day is literal but chapter two is not.

No.

Per the text you only need “light” and “darkness” to have day and night.

Read what it says and stop trying to make it mean what you want it to say.

That’s what cultist do.

Then preSun how do you know the days were 24 hours? **** since it was "day" meaning light" wouldn't that mean 12 hours? Taking the text literally is nonsensicle.

So what was making the light and darkness before the sun? Did God put a lamp up in the cosmos before? Did he turn the lights of the stars on and off?

Also enough with this "cultist" ****, 6 day creationists are in the minority amung Christians ... trying to do personal attacks is just bad form.

So, according to Genesis 2 and you, God:

1. Made the male,
2. planted the Garden of Eden,
3. placed the male in the Garden of Eden,
4. caused every tree to grow in the Garden of Eden,
5. put rivers in the Garden of Eden,
6. noticed that it was not good for man to be alone,
7. had the male name all of the animals in the Garden of Eden,
8. put him to sleep and removed a rib, and then
9. made the female.

So why not just make both the male and female at the same time? Why the wait?

I have no idea, I don't need to defend a literal interpretation of Genesis .. YOU have to defend it, but you can't because it's indefensable.

So tell me, do you agree with Genesis 1? Did he make them at the same time? Or Genesis 2?

1. Where does it say God talked to birds?

2. Yes. God “spoke” and things were created.

3. It’s “clear” only to cultist about the “style in which it is written”.

Genesis 1:21,22 (NRSV) 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”

1. God blesses and talks to the animals here ... did that LITERALLY happen?
2. It's also clear to many many scholars and the majority of Christians, again, fake adhomonim attacks just make you look desperate.

Straw-man fallacy all over again.

“Literal” in only one part of the three parts of the hermeneutics we use to interpret Scriptures.

C’mon, now!

What were the other two parts and how do we read them?

Once again, straw-man fallacy. See above.

I’ve already explained it to you! So why do you take Genesis literally and not those other scriptures?

I understand that you believe that.

And you’re wrong and I’ve grown bored trying to reason this point with you.

I don’t know what kind of cult you’re wrapped-up in but does it ever have you messed-up.

It's funny you use the word "reason" when trying to defend 6 day creationism ...

I answered the contradiction between the word day in Genesis 1 and 2, it's the fact that day isn't to be taken literally ... you havn't, because you can't.

 

[The Baron]

umm ... yes Literally it does ... Do you want me to find the Hebrew trasliteration?

Already have one.

The light was called "day" and the darkenss was called "night," I'll get the text if you waht to deny it.

I wouldn’t deny it. That is exactly what it says. What it doesn’t say is that the “sun” and “moon” divided the “day” and the “night” in Day One.

Where is the light coming from?

How should I know? The Bible doesn’t say and I don’t claim any special knowledge.

Why do you?

(btw I find it hillareous that you would have the audacity to try and use science to defend 6 day creationism).

Why? I have my Bachelor of Science Degree in Engineering. As such, I’m rather familiar with the subject.

yeah, you decide that chapter one's use of day is literal but chapter two is not.

How is that different from what you’re doing (in reverse, of course)?

Then preSun how do you know the days were 24 hours? **** since it was "day" meaning light" wouldn't that mean 12 hours? Taking the text literally is nonsensicle.

As always we should turn to the Bible, should we not?

Genesis 1:3
And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Genesis 1:6
And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Genesis 1:13
And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Genesis 1:14 - 19
And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.

And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Genesis 1:23
And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

Genesis 1:31
And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

Seems to me that the Bible says that days are less about “light and dark” and more about “evenings and mornings”.

But who are you kidding, anyway? Didn’t you argue that a “day” could me anything (your post no. 270--in case you’re wondering)?

By the way, what do you suppose those “two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night” are? I think it’s the sun and the moon but according to your logic nothing means what it seems to mean in the Bible so I’m really interested in getting your take on this.

So what was making the light and darkness before the sun? Did God put a lamp up in the cosmos before? Did he turn the lights of the stars on and off?

The Bible doesn’t say and I don’t pretend to know.

Why do you?

Also enough with this "cultist" ****, 6 day creationists are in the minority amung Christians ... trying to do personal attacks is just bad form.

Oh, excuse me all to hell! Didn’t you just get through calling me a “twat” in another thread (So What's Wrong with the Christian View of Homosexuality?, your post no. 475).

And being accused of being a “cultist” is not a “personal attack”. If you don’t believe me you can check out the definition here. It’s the Merriam-Webster definition…it’s a very “mainstream” dictionary, you know?

Now do you see the difference between “cultist” and “twat” in personal attacks?

I dare say that I should be more offended but it it’s true that “you are what you eat” then I suppose I will have some difficulty in proving that I am not a, er--ah--well…let’s just move on!

I have no idea, I don't need to defend a literal interpretation of Genesis .. YOU have to defend it, but you can't because it's indefensable.

So tell me, do you agree with Genesis 1? Did he make them at the same time? Or Genesis 2?

As I’ve noted several times to the point of boredom for me, I believe in Genesis 1 that he Creation was created in six literal days.

I also believe in Genesis 2 that the Creation was created over “some period” of time (in this case, six days) just as your own post no. 270 documents.

Genesis 1:21,22 (NRSV) 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”

1. God blesses and talks to the animals here ... did that LITERALLY happen?
2. It's also clear to many many scholars and the majority of Christians, again, fake adhomonim attacks just make you look desperate.

1. Yes, He “blesses” the animals which is a far cry different from saying he had a little “sit-down” with each particular critter so they could have a chat.

2. And yet I seem to be in the mainstream by simply believing as so many mainstream protestants do (being that I am one).

3. The only secret here, RGacky3, is knowing what you are and what your beliefs are.

And that much ain’t debatable.

 

[brothern]

1. I'm can say with confidence, that bacteria CANNOT exist without a sun, and I'll say "for a second" at that, find me a biologist that thinks that bacteria can exist for anytime without a son.

Wouldn’t know. I’m really not “up” on my biology.

All I can do is point to the Bible which says that vegetation was created on the third day and the sun and stars on the fourth (Genesis 1:11-19).

Stating you believe in the literal Creation story proves that you're not "up" on any science or educated thought, let alone biology. In response to the "no sun" conjecture: Simply put, if the sun disappeared, vegetation and bacteria would almost instantaneously freeze, as the Earth would approach near absolute zero temperature (save for the Earth's inner core).

But going back to "pointing to the Bible". The Creation story is a flat out myth, and is throughly disproven by almost every single shred of physical evidence and natural law that we have ever discovered. From evolutionary biology to astronomy. There is no way around that unless you choose to believe that (1) all physical evidence is a lie or (2) God in involved in a massive conspiracy theory to plant fake evidence to trick Christians.

Given that those are both unlikely, I would like to apologize for the American school system and your science teachers, who both obviously failed you miserably.

As I’ve noted several times to the point of boredom for me, I believe in Genesis 1 that he Creation was created in six literal days.

I apologize.

 

[RGacky3]

Already have one.

Then don't make stupid claims, it says the light was "day" and the darkness was "night."

I wouldn’t deny it. That is exactly what it says. What it doesn’t say is that the “sun” and “moon” divided the “day” and the “night” in Day One.

How do we know how long a day is? what is the "light" that causes "daytime," it's the sun isn't it.

How should I know? The Bible doesn’t say and I don’t claim any special knowledge.

Why do you?

Well it's called "day" that should give you a clue .... it's the sun.

How is that different from what you’re doing (in reverse, of course)?

Because I'm taking BOTH of them as metaphorical.

As always we should turn to the Bible, should we not?

Genesis 1:3
And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Genesis 1:6
And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Genesis 1:13
And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Genesis 1:14 - 19
And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.

And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Genesis 1:23
And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

Genesis 1:31
And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

Seems to me that the Bible says that days are less about “light and dark” and more about “evenings and mornings”.

But who are you kidding, anyway? Didn’t you argue that a “day” could me anything (your post no. 270--in case you’re wondering)?

By the way, what do you suppose those “two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night” are? I think it’s the sun and the moon but according to your logic nothing means what it seems to mean in the Bible so I’m really interested in getting your take on this.

You're assuming that it isn't just poetic language ..... which I would read it as, also how the hell can you have an evening and a morning without a sun???? That tells me it's OBVIOUSLY poetic.

As for the two great lights, it could be many things, it could be from the viewpoint of the earth, i.e. they appeared on the earth, it could be that the account is just a logical progression. I don't know, what I do know is it is OBVIOUS that it isn't to be taken literally.

The Bible doesn’t say and I don’t pretend to know.

Why do you?

Ok, so you apriori say its literal, and everything that doesn't fit or shows that it is not literal you just shrug your shoulders and say "I don't know."

Oh, excuse me all to hell! Didn’t you just get through calling me a “twat” in another thread (So What's Wrong with the Christian View of Homosexuality?, your post no. 475).

And being accused of being a “cultist” is not a “personal attack”. If you don’t believe me you can check out the definition here. It’s the Merriam-Webster definition…it’s a very “mainstream” dictionary, you know?

Now do you see the difference between “cultist” and “twat” in personal attacks?

I dare say that I should be more offended but it it’s true that “you are what you eat” then I suppose I will have some difficulty in proving that I am not a, er--ah--well…let’s just move on!

Yes I did, not for you're beliefs, positions or arguments, for the way you treat people you debate.

The fact is "cultist" is used as a pejorative term, and you're using it to try discredit me, i.e. ad hominem, attack.

As I’ve noted several times to the point of boredom for me, I believe in Genesis 1 that he Creation was created in six literal days.

I also believe in Genesis 2 that the Creation was created over “some period” of time (in this case, six days) just as your own post no. 270 documents.

Ok, so you are taking Genesis 1 to be literal, and Genesis 2 to be metaphorical and doing so essencailly arbitrarily, what is the basis of this? Why would you take Genesis 1 literallty (dispite the evidence), but genesis 2 allegorically (when it's written in the same basic style).

1. Yes, He “blesses” the animals which is a far cry different from saying he had a little “sit-down” with each particular critter so they could have a chat.

2. And yet I seem to be in the mainstream by simply believing as so many mainstream protestants do (being that I am one).

3. The only secret here, RGacky3, is knowing what you are and what your beliefs are.

And that much ain’t debatable.

1. blessed them saying "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” i.e. he was TALKING TO THEM, otherwise who was he talkin to?

2. 6 day creationism is not in the meanstream, amung orthodox, protestants or catholics....

 

[The Baron]

Then don't makestupid claims, it says the light was "day" and the darkness was"night."

Nobody’s claimed any different?

How do we know how long a day is? what is the"light" that causes "daytime," it's the sun isn't it.

The Bible doesn’t tell us.

Well it's called "day" that should give youa clue .... it's the sun.

As I’ve already shown you, the sun andmoon don’t get created until the fourth day. I showed it right there to you in the text.

I have to confess it is rather comical toshow you something in black-and-white and watch you try to squirm away from theobvious. This cult really has you alltwisted up.

Because I'm taking BOTH of them as metaphorical.

I know. Sadly, I know…

You're assuming that it isn't just poetic language..... which I would read it as, also how the hell can you have an evening and amorning without a sun???? That tells me it's OBVIOUSLY poetic.

I haven’t assumed anything! In fact, you’re the one assuming “poeticlanguage”.

And the reason you’re having an “eveningand morning” is because you have light. What is the source of this light? I don’t pretend to know. I justknow is exists because God commanded it and the Bible says it appeared.

I also know--and have shown youclearly--that the sun and moon don’t get created until the fourth day.

As for the two great lights, it could be many things,it could be from the viewpoint of the earth, i.e. they appeared on the earth,it could be that the account is just a logical progression. I don't know, whatI do know is it is OBVIOUS that it isn't to be taken literally.

You don’t know quite a lot! You don’t know if it the “viewpoint of theearth” (whatever that means), you don’t know if it’s a “logical progression”(whatever that means). There is so muchyou don’t know but you are absolutely positive that when God said, “Let therebe lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and letthem serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them belights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. Godmade two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser lightto govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of thesky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and toseparate light from darkness.”

Of all thethings you don’t know you can read that and be certain that God is not talkingabout the Sun and Moon?

Wow!

Ok, so youapriori say its literal, and everything that doesn't fit or shows that it isnot literal you just shrug your shoulders and say "I don't know."

Another straw-manfallacy. I never claimed that.
You have metaking the most extreme positions. Noneof which are true but I do see you attempting to make the most erroneous ofpositions.

Yes I did, not for you're beliefs, positions orarguments, for the way you treat people you debate.

1. He attached first.
2. He came to an adult website and acted like achild. Subsequently he was treated likea child.

See how thatworks?

The fact is "cultist" is used as apejorative term, and you're using it to try discredit me, i.e. ad hominem,attack.

You are a cultist as evidenced by:

1. You are too afraid of being discredited to share with anyone your actualbeliefs.

2. The few beliefs you have made public are the well-known beliefs ofwell-known cults (i.e. some of your beliefs mirror those of Jehovah Witnesses).

3. I provided a definition from Merriam-Webster’s dictionary of acultist. So by all means, please showhow you do not fit the definition provided.

Ok, so you are taking Genesis 1 to be literal, andGenesis 2 to be metaphorical and doing so essencailly arbitrarily, what is thebasis of this? Why would you take Genesis 1 literallty (dispite the evidence),but genesis 2 allegorically (when it's written in the same basic style).

1. Once again, I take Genesis 1 literally as it was written that wayand the early Jews would have understoodit that way. The Allegorical Method ofHermeneutics didn’t begin infringing upon the Old Testament until just a fewhundred years before Christ.

2. Genesis2:4 is taken figuratively in light of Genesis 1. Since it has already been established thatthe Creation event took six days everyone clearly understands that “yom” (or “day”)in Genesis 2:4 is figuratively meant (remember, there are three parts to ourhermenutical method).

3. I have not addressed the “style” ofeither Genesis 1 or 2.

blessed themsaying "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and letbirds multiply on the earth.” i.e. he was TALKING TO THEM, otherwise who was hetalkin to?

Right.

He blessed them.

And?

blessed 6 day creationism is not in the meanstream,amung orthodox, protestants or catholics....

Keep tellingyourself that…maybe someday that and you’re other cultist beliefs will be “mainstream”too.

 

[Quag]

There are still people who believe in a literal interpretation of genesis! That is a scary thought.

 

[The Baron]

Boo!


...

 

[The Baron]

Well, since we all seem to be in agreement that Christ is God. Why do Jehovah Witnesses believe that Christ is the angel Michael? I don't understand the logic there or even where it comes from. Does anybody here know?

 

[ecofarm]

Well, since we all seem to be in agreement that Christ is God. Why do Jehovah Witnesses believe that Christ is the angel Michael? I don't understand the logic there or even where it comes from. Does anybody here know?

Flaming swords guarding Eden.
Michael appears with a flaming sword.
Michael appears in Revelations as a savior figure (vs. the dragon iirc).
Only Michael allowed himself to be worshiped, other angels do not (because they are creation).
There is only one arch-angel.

Those are some of the issues, off the top of my head. I think your best bet for a full explanation would be the Witness Bible Encyclopedia, which explains it in full and with cross-references.

Witnesses believe that Christ is God and, in Heaven, known as Michael the arch-angel.

 

[The Baron]

Flaming swords guarding Eden.
Michael appears with a flaming sword.
Michael appears in Revelations as a savior figure (vs. the dragon iirc).
Only Michael allowed himself to be worshiped, other angels do not.
There is only one arch-angel.

Those are some of the issues, off the top of my head. I think your best bet for a full explanation would be the Witness Bible Encyclopedia, which explains it in full and with cross-references.

Witnesses believe that Christ is God and, in Heaven, known as Michael the arch-angel.

Where (book, chapter, verse) does Michael allow himself to be worshipped?

 

[ecofarm]

Where (book, chapter, verse) does Michael allow himself to be worshipped?

I'd need to search. I think a better internet-hunt would be the Witness Encyclopedia, "Michael".

 

[ecofarm]

Where (book, chapter, verse) does Michael allow himself to be worshipped?

Here's something I found while looking:

Next let's look at a verse describing the archangel. "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout [command], with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:" (1 Thess. 4:16)

Michael the archangel is Christ according to the Bible



I found the worship reference:

Joshua 5:13-15 And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant? And the captain of the LORD'S host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so.

Is Jesus Michael the Archangel?

 

[ecofarm]

Where (book, chapter, verse) does Michael allow himself to be worshipped?

I found this:

Army Leader. The Bible states that “Michael and his angels battled with the dragon…and its angels.” (Revelation 12:7) Thus, Michael is the Leader of an army of faithful angels. Revelation also describes Jesus as the Leader of an army of faithful angels. (Revelation 19:14-16) And the apostle Paul specifically mentions “the Lord Jesus” and “his powerful angels.” (2 Thessalonians 1:7; Matthew 16:27; 24:31; 1 Peter 3:22) So the Bible speaks of both Michael and “his angels” and Jesus and “his angels.” (Matthew 13:41) Since God’s Word nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven—one headed by Michael and one headed by Jesus—it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role.

*More information showing that the name Michael applies to God’s Son is found in Volume 2, pages 393-4, of Insight on the Scriptures, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Who Is Michael the Archangel? - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site

 

[The Baron]

Here's something I found while looking:



Michael the archangel is Christ according to the Bible



I found the worship reference:



Is Jesus Michael the Archangel?

Ahhh...the Joshua reference is helpful. It is, of course, completely wrong to think that Micheal is the one spoken of in Joshua 5 but, at least, I'm beginning to understand. Thank you!

 

[ecofarm]

Ahhh...the Joshua reference is helpful. It is, of course, completely wrong to think that Micheal is the one spoken of in Joshua 5 but, at least, I'm beginning to understand. Thank you!

Who else is "captain of the Lord's host", "leader of the Lord's army"?

 

[ecofarm]

Ahhh...the Joshua reference is helpful. It is, of course, completely wrong to think that Micheal is the one spoken of in Joshua 5 but, at least, I'm beginning to understand. Thank you!

Actually, the mainstream theological objection there is not the identity of the angel, as that is most surely Michael. The objection is that the worship was not directed at Michael.

 

[The Baron]

Who else is "captain of the Lord's host", "leader of the Lord's army"?

That would be the “Angel of the Lord” which most scholars believe to be the pre-incarnate (if that’s the word) Christ.

Old Testament References to Christ

Genesis 16:7-13

“Now the angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, by the spring on the way to Shur.
He said, "Hagar, Sarai's maid, where have you come from and where are you going?" And she said, "I am fleeing from the presence of my mistress Sarai."
Then the angel of the LORD said to her, "Return to your mistress, and submit yourself to her authority."
Moreover, the angel of the LORD said to her, "I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be too many to count."
The angel of the LORD said to...Then she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, "You are a God who sees"; for she said, "Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?" - NASB

Genesis 22:11-18

“But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."
Then Abraham...called the name of that place The LORD Will Provide, as it is said to this day, "In the mount of the LORD it will be provided."
Then the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven,
and said, "By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son,
indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies.
"In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice." - NASB

Exodus 3:2-5

“The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed.
So Moses said, "I must turn aside now and see this marvelous sight, why the bush is not burned up."
When the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, "Moses, Moses!" And he said, "Here I am."
Then He said, "Do not come near here; remove your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground." - NASB

Numbers 22:22-35

“But God was angry ...Then the angel of the LORD stood in a narrow path of the vineyards...the angel of the LORD, she pressed herself to the wall and pressed Balaam's foot against the wall, so he struck her again. The angel of the LORD went further, and stood in a narrow place where there was no way to turn to the right hand or the left.
When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, she lay down under Balaam; so Balaam was angry and struck the donkey with his stick.
And the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?"

Then Balaam said to the donkey, "Because you have made a mockery of me! If there had been a sword in my hand, I would have killed you by now."
The donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your donkey on which you have ridden all your life to this day? Have I ever been accustomed to do so to you?" And he said, "No."
Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way with his drawn sword in his hand; and he bowed all the way to the ground.
The angel of the LORD said to him, "Why have you struck your donkey these three times? Behold, I have come out as an adversary, because your way was contrary to me.
"But the donkey saw me and turned aside from me these three times. If she had not turned aside from me, I would surely have killed you just now, and let her live."
Balaam said to the angel of the LORD, "I have sinned, for I did not know that you were standing in the way against me. Now then, if it is displeasing to you, I will turn back."

But the angel of the LORD said to Balaam, "Go with the men, but you shall speak only the word which I tell you." So Balaam went along with the leaders of Balak.” – NASB

Judges 6:11-24

Then the angel of the LORD came and sat under the oak that was in Ophrah, which belonged to Joash the Abiezrite as his son Gideon was beating out wheat in the wine press in order to save it from the Midianites.

The angel of the LORD appeared to him and said to him, "The LORD is with you, O valiant warrior."

Then Gideon said to him, "O my lord, if the LORD is with us, why then has all this happened to us? And where are all His miracles which our fathers told us about, saying, 'Did not the LORD bring us up from Egypt?' But now the LORD has abandoned us and given us into the hand of Midian."

The LORD looked at him and said, "Go in this your strength and deliver Israel from the hand of Midian. Have I not sent you?"

He said to Him, "O Lord, how shall I deliver Israel? Behold, my family is the least in Manasseh, and I am the youngest in my father's house."

But the LORD said to him, "Surely I will be with you, and you shall defeat Midian as one man."

So Gideon said to Him, "If now I have found favor in Your sight, then show me a sign that it is You who speak with me. "Please do not depart from here, until I come back to You, and bring out my offering and lay it before You."

And He said, "I will remain until you return."

Then Gideon went in and prepared a young goat and unleavened bread from an ephah of flour; he put the meat in a basket and the broth in a pot, and brought them out to him under the oak and presented them.

The angel of God said to him, "Take the meat and the unleavened bread and lay them on this rock, and pour out the broth." And he did so.

Then the angel of the LORD put out the end of the staff that was in his hand and touched the meat and the unleavened bread; and fire sprang up from the rock and consumed the meat and the unleavened bread. Then the angel of the LORD vanished from his sight.

When Gideon saw that he was the angel of the LORD, he said, "Alas, O Lord GOD! For now I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face."

The LORD said to him, "Peace to you, do not fear; you shall not die."

Then Gideon built an altar there to the LORD and named it The LORD is Peace. To this day it is still in Ophrah of the Abiezrites. - NASB

Judges 13:2-24

There was a certain man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah; and his wife was barren and had borne no children.

Then the angel of the LORD appeared to the woman and said to her, "Behold now, you are barren and have borne no children, but you shall conceive and give birth to a son.
"Now therefore, be careful not to drink wine or strong drink, nor eat any unclean thing.
"For behold, you shall conceive and give birth to a son, and no razor shall come upon his head, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb; and he shall begin to deliver Israel from the hands of the Philistines."

Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, "A man of God came to me and his appearance was like the appearance of the angel of God, very awesome. And I did not ask him where he came from, nor did he tell me his name.

"But he said to me, 'Behold, you shall conceive and give birth to a son, and now you shall not drink wine or strong drink nor eat any unclean thing, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death.'"

Then Manoah entreated the LORD and said, "O Lord, please let the man of God whom You have sent come to us again that he may teach us what to do for the boy who is to be born."

God listened to the voice of Manoah; and the angel of God came again to the woman as she was sitting in the field, but Manoah her husband was not with her.
So the woman ran quickly and told her husband, "Behold, the man who came the other day has appeared to me."

Then Manoah arose and followed his wife, and when he came to the man he said to him, "Are you the man who spoke to the woman?" And he said, "I am."

Manoah said, "Now when your words come to pass, what shall be the boy's mode of life and his vocation?"

So the angel of the LORD said to Manoah, "Let the woman pay attention to all that I said.

"She should not eat anything that comes from the vine nor drink wine or strong drink, nor eat any unclean thing; let her observe all that I commanded."

Then Manoah said to the angel of the LORD, "Please let us detain you so that we may prepare a young goat for you."

The angel of the LORD said to Manoah, "Though you detain me, I will not eat your food, but if you prepare a burnt offering, then offer it to the LORD." For Manoah did not know that he was the angel of the LORD.

Manoah said to the angel of the LORD, "What is your name, so that when your words come to pass, we may honor you?"

But the angel of the LORD said to him, "Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?"

So Manoah took the young goat with the grain offering and offered it on the rock to the LORD, and He performed wonders while Manoah and his wife looked on.

For it came about when the flame went up from the altar toward heaven, that the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar. When Manoah and his wife saw this, they fell on their faces to the ground.

Now the angel of the LORD did not appear to Manoah or his wife again. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD.

So Manoah said to his wife, "We will surely die, for we have seen God."

But his wife said to him, "If the LORD had desired to kill us, He would not have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering from our hands, nor would He have shown us all these things, nor would He have let us hear things like this at this time."

Then the woman gave birth to a son and named him Samson; and the child grew up and the LORD blessed him.” - NASB

Conclusion

From these Old Testament verses we may conclude that Jehovah’s angel is Jehovah reasoning that:

1. In Genesis 16:7-13 Hagar recognizes that Jehovah’s angel is Jehovah and addresses Him as such and even exclaims that she lives although she has seen Him (Exodus 33:20).

2. In Genesis 22:11-18, Jehovah’s angel tells Abraham not to sacrifice his son which is something that Jehovah told him to do in Genesis 22:2. Abraham, who did not hesitate to bring his son to the place where he was told to sacrifice him as God instructed him to, did not question Jehovah’s angel’s instructions although they conflicted with Jehovah’s command. Why? Because Abraham recognized Jehovah’s angel as Jehovah.

Also, the angel then states in verse 12 that He knows Abraham is God-fearing as he did not attempt to spare his son from “me”. Jehovah’s angel could only make such a statement if Jehovah’s angel is Jehovah.

3. Exodus 3:2-5 notes that Jehovah’s angel is in the midst of the thornbush and it was God (note the use of the uppercase “G”) that called to Moses from the midst of the thornbush.

4. Numbers 22:22-35 details how Ba’laan worshipped Jehovah’s angel and how he “sinned” by resisting the will of Jehovah’s angel.

5. Judges 6:11-24 illustrates that Jehovah’s angel accepted worship just as Jehovah does, however, actual angels of God do not seek or accept worship (compare with Revelation 22:9).

It should also be noted that Gideon recognized Jehovah angel as Jehovah and feared for his life for he understood that no one can see God and live (see Exodus 33:20).

6. Judges 13:2-24, Jehovah’s angel is recognized by Manoah and his wife as Jehovah as Manoah worried that they would die for they had seen God (see Exodus 33:20). In addition, Jehovah’s angel accepted an offering (worship) from Manoah and his wife. And after accepting their offering, both Manoah and his wife fell with their faces to the ground as to worship Jehovah’s angel. Something that no angel from Jehovah would seek or accept (see Revelation 22:9)

It is for these reasons that we can conclude using the Old Testament of the New World Translation that Jesus was active and recognized as Jehovah during Old Testament times.

Please note these additional verses where Jehovah’s angel can be found in the Old Testament:

Genesis 31:11-13

Exodus 14:19

Exodus 23:20

Exodus 32:34

1 Chronicles 21:1-27

1 Kings 19:5-7

1 Kings 19:9-18

2 Kings 19:35

Zechariah 1:11

Zechariah 3:1

 

[ecofarm]

You believe that Jesus did appear to Joshua, and was worshiped by him, but not in the form of Michael?

I hadn't seen that objection before.

 

[The Baron]

You believe that Jesus did appear to Joshua, and was worshiped by him, but not in the form of Michael?

I haven't seen that objection before.

I can even quote you what it says in the notes of the Bible I'm using at the moment (Holman Apologetics):

"As he approached Jehrico, Joshua encountered the 'commander of the Lord's army.' This must be understood as an appearance of the Lord through His angelic messenger. In such appearnances, the Scriptures usually make no distinction between the Angel of the Lord and God Himself (see Gn 16:9-14; 18:1-33). Joshua's act of prostration 'in worship' (the Hb word for 'worhip' means to bow or lie prostrate) is not reverence for a lesser being than God Himself. The encounter reminded Joshua that is was the Lord who would lead the battle against Jehrico and insure victory for the Israelites.'

 

[ecofarm]

Ahhh...the Joshua reference is helpful. It is, of course, completely wrong to think that Micheal is the one spoken of in Joshua 5 but, at least, I'm beginning to understand. Thank you!

How about this?

Daniel 12:1 ESV / 21 helpful votes

“At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book.

Daniel 10:21 ESV / 12 helpful votes

But I will tell you what is inscribed in the book of truth: there is none who contends by my side against these except Michael, your prince.

What Does the Bible Say About Archangel Angel Michael?

 

[The Baron]

Oops! Look at the time. Gotta go. Taking a long week-end in Nashville with the Baroness. Will check back on my return.

 

[RGacky3]

Nobody’s claimed any different?

Oh God .... this is getting sad ...
post 275
I say - "And they were called day and night on the first day, meaning the sun was created the first day if you want to take the text literally."


You say -"“Literally” that’s not what the text says."

The Bible doesn’t tell us.

Exactly, it could be any amount of time.

As I’ve already shown you, the sun andmoon don’t get created until the fourth day. I showed it right there to you in the text.

I have to confess it is rather comical toshow you something in black-and-white and watch you try to squirm away from theobvious. This cult really has you alltwisted up.

You're begging the question, I'm arguing that the sun and moon were NOT created until the fourth day .... Since days and nights already existed ...

Look at the contradictory nonsense you have to try and defend taking a literalist view ...

I haven’t assumed anything! In fact, you’re the one assuming “poeticlanguage”.

And the reason you’re having an “eveningand morning” is because you have light. What is the source of this light? I don’t pretend to know. I justknow is exists because God commanded it and the Bible says it appeared.

I also know--and have shown youclearly--that the sun and moon don’t get created until the fourth day.

I'm not assuming poetic language I'm arguing for it.

Having light doesn't make eavening and morning, there is light at night from the stars and moon, and shutting the curtains during the day doesn't make it night .... Day and night are only the earths position in relation to the sun .... You're trying to defend a clear contradiction ... it doesn't work becaue the text isn't literal.

Also you havn't shown that the sun and moon don't get greated until the fourth day ... I've given other interpretations of that text which you havn't shown to be false ...

Also your assuming in ALL of this that the text is to be taken literally. wherer as when you do this you come up with all sorts of contradictions, "day" meaning 3 different things, days and nights and mornings and eavenings existing before the sun, the earth existing before the sun but some mysterious light ... making "day," genesis 1 contradicting Genesis 2, that plants existed without a sun and so on.

You don’t know quite a lot! You don’t know if it the “viewpoint of theearth” (whatever that means), you don’t know if it’s a “logical progression”(whatever that means). There is so muchyou don’t know but you are absolutely positive that when God said, “Let therebe lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and letthem serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them belights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. Godmade two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser lightto govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of thesky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and toseparate light from darkness.”

Of all thethings you don’t know you can read that and be certain that God is not talkingabout the Sun and Moon?

Wow!

The view point of the earth means as the creation would have been seen from the earth .... logical progression means exactly that .... It could also be that on the fourth day these things "had been made," there are many different interpretations. I don't need to take one since the account IS'NT LITERAL.

But here is what I AM certain of, the Genesis account, at least genesis 1 is not to be take literal and the days are not 24 hour days, I'm not saying it's not talking about the sun and moon, I'm saying that it's not saying that the sun and moon were created after the earth. I am certain about that, because as a literal account it doesn't make any sense, it's contradictory and nonsensicle IF taken literally, but it isn't, which is what most theologians and scholars believe today.

Another straw-manfallacy. I never claimed that.
You have metaking the most extreme positions. Noneof which are true but I do see you attempting to make the most erroneous ofpositions.

What position do I claim you take which you're not taking?

1. He attached first.
2. He came to an adult website and acted like achild. Subsequently he was treated likea child.

See how thatworks?

I find it funny that a 6 day creationist, says someone is acting like a child .... Either way the only person I say acting childishly between the 2 of you was you.

You are a cultist as evidenced by:

1. You are too afraid of being discredited to share with anyone your actualbeliefs.

2. The few beliefs you have made public are the well-known beliefs ofwell-known cults (i.e. some of your beliefs mirror those of Jehovah Witnesses).

3. I provided a definition from Merriam-Webster’s dictionary of acultist. So by all means, please showhow you do not fit the definition provided.

1. I'll give you my beliefs, if you ask, but I'm not going to attach myself to a dogma.
2. That's irrelevant, I'm a Unitarian ... was Isaac Newton a Cultist too?

My point stands you're using it as an ad hominem prejorative ... Because your position is indefensable, 6 day creationism is a laughing stock amung scientists AND theologians and for good reason.

1. Once again, I take Genesis 1 literally as it was written that wayand the early Jews would have understoodit that way. The Allegorical Method ofHermeneutics didn’t begin infringing upon the Old Testament until just a fewhundred years before Christ.

2. Genesis2:4 is taken figuratively in light of Genesis 1. Since it has already been established thatthe Creation event took six days everyone clearly understands that “yom” (or “day”)in Genesis 2:4 is figuratively meant (remember, there are three parts to ourhermenutical method).

3. I have not addressed the “style” ofeither Genesis 1 or 2.

1. Evidence that the early Jews would have understood it that way? They didn't wright it that way. Also I find it funny that you claim that the Allegorical method didn't exist until a few hundred years before Christ, where the ONLY EXAMPLE of rabbinic hermeneutics we have is from a few hundred years before christ .... So you're just making this up .... to covor up that most rabbinic sources take genesis as non literal, as do most christian theologians from all the way back as augustine.

But you claim that the REAL hermeneutics is literal, but you have no evidence for it.

2. That's simply an unbased assertion ... Genesis 2 reads just as literal as Genesis 1, infact moreso, since it refers to a specific narrative.

3. No you havn't, Genesis one reads exactly like figurative narrative reads.

Right.

He blessed them.

And?



Keep tellingyourself that…maybe someday that and you’re other cultist beliefs will be “mainstream”too.

And if you are intent on taking the text literally you'd HAVE to accept that God talked to birds .... since that is what the text says.

Show me that most scholars or christian theologians take 6 day creationism literally? You can't because they don't, 6 day creationism is not only a minority its a laughing stock amung scientists AND christian scholars.

 

[RGacky3]

That would be the “Angel of the Lord” which most scholars believe to be the pre-incarnate (if that’s the word) Christ.

Evidence for that? Its total nonsense. "Angel of the Lord" SIMPLY MEANS an angel of the lord, a messanger of God ... there is no indication that the angel is the massiah ...

Also bowing down ISN'T worship ... people do that to King David in the scriptrues (using the same word, such as Abigail), doesn't mean they thought that King David was Yahweh, it's also use for simply the title of King in Israel .... It doesn't mean religious worship necessarily.

In the Greek (used in the septuagent as well) preoskeneo, sometimes translated worship sometimes translated obescence, is used for kings, angels, saints, God, Jesus, preists and so on.

But the word Latreuo, which is religious worship is ONLY EVER used for YHWH, the father.

That whole post is simply a missunderstanding of the language. If "worship" or "obescience" makes the angel of the Lord (which is just a title for an angel, which could be many different angels), makes that angel Yahweh himself, it also makes king david yahweh.

 

[The Baron]

How about this? (Daniel 12:1)

Without going into a long dissertation (you’re welcome) from various texts in the Bible there is some indication that different angels have dominion over different geographical areas, etc.

Michael appears to be the angel in charge of protecting Israel / the Jewish people. We even see him as being quite busy in Revelation with all of the turmoil being described in Israel during the end-times.

As for Daniel 10:21, Michael is called a “prince”. But there is no indication that this makes him Jesus. The passage here is mostly about angelic conflicts (and, by the way, the “various texts” I referred to earlier was primarily this text (Daniel 10:10-21).

 

[ecofarm]

Without going into a long dissertation (you’re welcome) from various texts in the Bible there is some indication that different angels have dominion over different geographical areas, etc.

I'm aware of that. Still, the Prince of the Jews becomes the King of the Jews upon descending to earth.

Jesus Christ was and remains the Sovereign of the chosen. He toils for our sin, amen.