It’s things like this that really make me question the intelligence of some of these people. So because some New Age dude takes a Christian concept and corrupts it, that automatically makes the original concept bad.

The concept of us working with God to bring about a desired end is very Biblical. There are all sorts of admonitions throughout Scripture.

Actually, one person who talked a lot about man’s creative abilities was Francis Schaeffer, whom Ingrid seems to idolize. Check out these quotes:

As a younger Christian, I never thought it right to use the word creation for an artistís work. I reserved it for God’s initial work alone. But I have come to realize that this was a mistake, because, while there is indeed a difference, there is also a very important parallel. The artist conceives in his thought world, and then he brings forth into the external world. This is true of an artist painting a canvas, a musician composing a piece of music, an engineer designing a bridge, or a flower arranger making a flower arrangement. First there is the conception in the thought world and then a bringing forth into the external world. And it is the same with God. God who existed before had a plan, and He created and caused these things to become objective. Furthermore, just as one can know something very real about the artist from looking at his creation, so we can know something about God by looking at His creation. The Scripture insists that even after the Fall, we still know something about God on this basis.
(Francis A. Schaeffer, Genesis In Time and Space, Ch. 1)

It is not only Christians who can paint with beauty, nor for that matter only Christians who can love or who have creative stirrings. Even though the image is now contorted, people are made in the image of God. This is who people are, whether or not they know or acknowledge it. God is the great Creator, and part of the unique mannishness of man, as made in Godís image, is creativity. Thus, man as man paints, shows creativity in science and engineering, and so on. Such activity does not require a special impulse from God, and it does not mean that people are not alienated from God and do not need the work of Christ to return to God. It does mean that man as man, in contrast to non-man, is creative.
(Francis A. Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live?, Ch. 4)

Wow! I’m emerging and I’m a peer of Rob Bell’s. I didn’t know either of those things.

So glad that someone knows me better than I know myself. And here all this time, I thought that someone was God.

Great quotes, Phil. I can hear Schaeffer now,

“This cultural sewage makes me and God sick!”

this is interesting.

i’m a composer/pianist/singer, and i’ve always considered the act of composing to be “co-creation”…because i think some songwriters are arrogant and feel that they’re the only ones writing…

but no. there’s something else there.

on the flip side, i’m the channel, so it comes through my perspective, my filter, so i’m the co-creator. it wouldn’t come through anybody else the same way.

very specific example, i know, and a bit tangential, but it seems like the idea of “co-creation” is essential. otherwise, why did God make us all so unique?

Its utter silliness and demonstrates again that they’re closer to an online lynch mob than they are interested in discerning truth.

well Calvinists believe God pre-ordained sin, do they not?

in which case, God is reduced to…um.

i won’t say it.

You are right, Dave. But human births do not just rearrange the creation. And God is still sovereignly involved with our “subset” creations. But maybe sin was a creation all our own?

It is worth noting that these terminologies can be significantly distorted and used in many aberrant ways.

Actually, the Hebrew perspective on Genesis/Creation is that God created from the chaos, first creating from nothing (days 1-3) and then bringing forth from creation (days 4-6, with 4 parallel to 1, 5 to 2, and 6 to 3), and that Adam’s role was then to create – bringing forth from what was created days 4-6 – which started with the naming of the animals (because to name something is to subdue it). Man has always, in the Hebrew mind, been given the job of creating from creation, and that this creative bent is a key aspect of being made “in the image of God”.

It is not prideful creation when its source is recognized (as Bell does in the “offending” paragraph)…

Evan – I am also a keyboard player/singer/songwriter. And as such, you will agree I’m sure, that some songs seem to be inspired by the Creator and others have no such geneology.

“What about abstarct things like ideas, songs, stories, etc.” – Phil Miller

Ideas – God created within us the ability to think, etc.

Songs – God created music.

Stories – God created language.

My point is that to both nuances of the word “create” in the same exact context without giving adequate explanation is simply provocative for the sake of being provocative. I would call it theologically careless at best (a charge that I believe can be leveled at Bell time and time again).

Chris L, I would like to see a credible Hebrew source which substantiates your claims. I don’t think anyone would get that meaning from the text from reading it, either in Hebrew or various English translations. Furthermore, I am glad that we don’t espouse current Hebrew interpretations of much of the Old Testament. If we did, we would sure be in bad shape when it comes to anything messianic, which, obviously is the crux of our faith.

Dave,

Probably the most prominent is Genesis Rabba, which was begun approximately 100 BC, and compiled in the third century. AD. Additionally, the oral Torah held this, as well, the section of which Paul references most prominently with the reference to the “seventh heaven”.

The Dead Sea scrolls, I believe, also show the belief in “deep calling to deep” and God’s relevatory process demonstrated in the poetry of Genesis 1. Examine for yourself the structure of days 1-3 and their parallels in 4-6. God continually calls His creation “good”, but he never calls it “complete” – instead, he gives man a purpose in continuing this process – “subduing” the earth (which begins with naming). This is also the reason that God never gives His name – just saying “I AM” – the giving of a name submits the named to the namer, and God submits to none of His creation.

Wow, Dave’s signing his own name now. Good for him.

I believe in a 6 day creation. Can I ignore clear(ly) Biblical teaching and be proud of myself too?

Just an aside…(maybe a bit nitpicky)

I don’t think we can say that God created music directly. I don’t think we can say God created geometry, etc. in a direct sense.

God created a world that has discernable order in it. Rational capacities in the human self and the expression of those capacities (in conceptual frameworks like geometry, etc.) are deeply related to our being made in the image of God.

To say otherwise is like saying God created “automobiles” and “ipods”.

Really quickly -

Bell doesn’t use the term “co-creator”.

He states:

And then God creates people, and gives them the ability to create more. So everything in creation is essentially unfinished, God leaves the world unfinished, and invites people to take part in the ongoing creation of the world.

Hebrew sources (oral Torah, traditionally given at the same time the written Torah was given) – which should not be dismissed out of hand, per Paul’s discussion in Romans 11 – completely support this.

God NEVER declares the world ‘finished’, but rather ‘good’, and he gives man purpose, which is a continuation of that creation. Day seven does not end with ‘evening and morning’.

I’m glad you are a creationist and don’t buy into the garbage about the creation account being poetic myth.

In Rob Bell’s world, Genesis is not a literal account, it is a poem.

Hogwash. A false dichotomy on the part of Ingrid, and a mistrepresentation on your part, Dave.

Nobody in this conversation has suggested that it is a “myth” (in the common vernacular that “myth” equates to “untrue”). Just because it is written in the form of poetry (which it undeniably is, except to folks who can’t handle the concept of poetry describing truth), doesn’t imply it is a ‘myth’ (or at least an ‘untrue myth’).

I would note that God creates ex nihlo on days 1-3, but that He creates from creation on days 4-6 (paralleling 1-4, 2-5, and 3-6).

So, when you write:

Ideas – God created within us the ability to think, etc.

Songs – God created music.

Stories – God created language.

Humans are acting in God’s image as creators – creating from creation.

God created thought – men create ideas from the though
God created music – men create compositions
God created language – men create stories

You’ve not contradicted Bell at all, and Bell has not contradicted the Bible.

Certainly, we can debate whether the creation was in six literal 24-hour days (as we experience 24 hours today), or whether it was over periods of time, or whether the nature of time itself has changed (where 24 hours today was the equivalent of 6 billion years on the first ‘day’ of the young universe). In the end, the most important aspect of the creation account is not its literary form (which, in Hebrew IS a poem), but rather the first vers – “God created”.

Ingrid’s response to Bell, and that of her sycophants, is j ust more gracelessness from those who have been shown grace – seeking to create disunity in the body for their own self-gratification and sense of false piety.

Genesis is not a myth and it represents a literal account, however it is a general account with wide interpretive generalities and to suggest that, for instance, the 24 hour six day creation view is the open and unambiguous view is simply holding the fort where there is no fort. And the New Testament makes no mention those aspects of the Genesis account.

I mean many fundanmentalists have placed a tortured “gap” between verse 1 and verse 2. They may be right or wrong, but no one can speak with authority about it or you run the risk of losing Biblical credibility in other areas that are clear.

“A false dichotomy on the part of Ingrid, and a mistrepresentation on your part, Dave.”

Chris, actually I didn’t understand Rick’s post, as evidenced later. That being said, I recently read a book entitled “The Art of Biblical History,” written by a fairly conservative author. I really enjoyed the book and have consequently been thinking much about the area of myth in the OT, etc. That being said, I did not intend to say that Rob believed that the first several chapters of Genesis are myth. I no evidence on this issue and therefore would not make such an accusation. I do, however, have major problems, again, with people using a word like “myth” and attributing it the first several chapters of Genesis. Whether they believe that it is true or false myth, is of little consequence at that point.

I still can’t go along with using the word “Create.” I think we are going around in circles here, so I challenge you to cite one biblical reference where the biblical authors use the word create in reference to human activity and thus end this conversation. I’m okay with being wrong — it’s not about me — it’s about truth.

I took issue with Rob when he used this language with Mary in his message “Mother Mary and Her Only Son.” The way I read Romans 1 (wasn’t sure about your Romans 11 reference) I get that we are the creation and God is the Creator.

I have not even said a word about Genesis 1 being poetry. I don’t have Hebrew in front of me to ascertain. I am not arguing that point. I, for one, am a huge proponent of identifying genre. I need to look into this, but on the surface I have no problems with Genesis 1 being written in poetic form. Poetry is communication and is a suitable biblical genre.

Poetry is NEVER literal.

Rick, you’re being funny, right?

Joe,
I think Rick is, well, just being Rick – so, yeah, I think he’s being funny.

Dave – yes, I agree, but you asked:

so I challenge you to cite one biblical reference where the biblical authors use the word create in reference to human activity and thus end this conversation.

I provided that but I still agree with your perspective that the word create suggests some human power outside God’s sovereignty.

Rick, I meant that someone should provide a place where God attributes the act of creating (within the same nuance) to humans

I’ve tried being Joe Martino but I didn’t like it so

Shock to the system going from you to being this good looking?

that’s a lot better Rick

Look, Neil, you cannot jump on the caboose and demand a seat in the engine! Like the big tomato who stomped the foot of the little tomato and said “Ketchup!”.

=)

Just kidding. You may call me Rick. Can you tell me how to change my moniker on my comments.

Internet idiot am I.

More accurately, Joe, it’s based upon the misinterpretation about which the word create can be vunerable. I think that Dave’s concerns are legitiamate and I can understand them, however in this case I understand what Pastor Bell is saying although that isn’t always the case.

Amy,

Good thoughts!

Only thing, you wrote, “But to say that we are “co-creators” with God seems to be putting our ability to “create” on the same level as God.”

In fairness, Rob didn’t actually say that in those words. However, I do believe that his usage of the english word “create” for humans in the same context as his usage of the english word “create” in relation to God is very careless, at best.

Your study in Hebrew illustrates the problem with Rabbinic interpretation. Sometimes it doesn’t even correspond with the text!

God reveals Himself with many names. The seventh day rest was ultimately reflective of salvation through Christ. We find our rest in Him. The creaton continues to create, Astonomers have watched the creation of new stars even in our lifetime. Of course all this is using the material made in the initial creation. All “creation” now operates under the canopy of the original creation.

Rick,

All “creation” now operates under the canopy of the original creation.

I would disagree, as i see all creation now operates under Christ and the New Creation… at least since He rose from the grave.

iggy

Iggy – apples and oranges. We are new creations spiritually but we wait for the New Heavens and new earth.

If it is germaine to this discussion, God says His name was YHWH. When we say Yahweh we have actually created His name. Ironic.

Rick,

Iggy – apples and oranges. We are new creations spiritually but we wait for the New Heavens and new earth.

I am a New Creation now… and so are you Rick… This is not apples and oranges or cherries and grapes or whatever else is in that fruit basket of yours = )

2 Cor 5: 14. For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again. 16. So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

I might add that we already are seated with Christ in the Heavenly realms…

Ephesians 2: 4. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5. made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions–it is by grace you have been saved. 6. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7. in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God– 9. not by works, so that no one can boast.

Now again, i am not sure what is in your doctrinal fruit basket, but I see that in mine is the richness of Christ that was, is and and is to come… and forever will be…

iggy

My apologies – saying that your name is “I AM” is LIKE saying “you have no business in having my name”. God is, and He is not to be subdued by us (which is what a name implies). Please forgive not identifying the simile with emphasis…

And why did God talk about the name Yahweh using the terms that he used?

From Exodus:

Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”

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

God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.

I realize that much of the humor in the Bible misses us, but God’s answer to Moses is pretty darn humorous.

Moses: What should I tell them your name is?

God: I am who I am.

That is His initial answer, and THAT is downright funny. The answer God gives Moses is one that has the import of putting Moses’ tail between his legs for even asking it in the first place.

And then God tells Moses to tell the Israelites that they should call Him “I AM” for all of history, pretty much nailing the point of who is the Master and who is not.

To name someone in the ancient cultures is to put them in a box (’who they are’ and ‘what they are’). This is even touched upon in Revelation, where God says to the church at Philadelphia “I will give you a new name”.

Any other nits to pick?

BTW – The entire Bible is presented in a created human language. Germaine?

This is also the reason that God never gives His name – just saying “I AM” – the giving of a name submits the named to the namer, and God submits to none of His creation.

(Chris L)

In Adam’s naming of the animals, he is naming them. In the above case Moses would not be naming God, but rather being told by God what God’s name was.

These are two different types of things. If the latter were always true in this time period then a person would not have told his name directly to anyone whom he did not want to be over him. Was that the case in this culture? How do you know?

If it was the case, absolutely, then are we to assume that God in speaking to Moses would have gone by all cultural norms? And why would Moses, who was afraid to look at God in this passage have been presumptious enough to ask God for His name? Would he be somehow assuming that he could be “over” God if God told him His name?

It would seem that if it were the cultural norm for a person to NOT give his name to someone below him, then Moses’ asking this question would have been Moses’ trying to gain some kind of advantage, superiority, rulership over God. I find that hard to believe of Moses, who in the presence of the blazing fire talking to him, is afraid to look at God.

It just doesn’t fit.

Moses immediately begins to use this name which is given repeatedly to him (Ex 3:16, 18), (translated, unfortunately, “LORD” instead of Yahweh in most Bibles.) In Exodus 4:1 he says, “They’ll just say, “Yahweh never appeared to you.” If God was essentially telling Moses “it’s none of your business” then why did Moses just pick up the name and start using it?

God, on the other hand, when asked for his name is “I AM” – which gives no insight into his nature, because He IS, and cannot be pigeon-holed.

(Chris L)

But you have demonstrated very well how “I AM” does indeed give insight into his nature: “He IS and cannot be pigeon-holed.”

Correction: Exodus 3:14 is actually “I Am” ‘eHYeH”

Exodus 3:15 is Yahweh “He is.”

Same root, different prefixes.

The translation of Yahweh both into English and into other languages has become a significant issue in Bible translation. A lot of people do believe that it is the personal name of God, and that there is no good reason we shouldn’t use it. And the history of it becoming the norm for it to be translated as LORD derives from the fact that many Jews believed that it is God’s personal name.

Any other nits to pick?

(Chris L)

Are you not interested in discussing different sides of issues? You made some statements that I don’t believe Scripture supports. I can only conclude that you believe that your detailed analysis is indisputable fact and my analysis is nits not worth looking into.

You made some statements that I don’t believe Scripture supports. I can only conclude that you believe that your detailed analysis is indisputable fact and my analysis is nits not worth looking into.

You might take that up with the Israelites who must have had it wrong in your book for the past 4,000+ years…

The name God gave Moses is a play on words, and the first stating made that clear (”I am who I am”). (Also, in the actual text, YHWH is the same in all cases in Ex 3:14, even though the verb tenses change.)

Would he be somehow assuming that he could be “over” God if God told him His name?

Not in an authority sense, but in a sense of limiting God by the constraints of his name – like all of the other ‘gods’ in the Middle East at the time.

And why would Moses, who was afraid to look at God in this passage have been presumptious enough to ask God for His name?

Again, it is very much in line with the culture to be so bold – examine Abraham’s interactions with God in Genesis 15, or Moses’ later interactions with God.

If the latter were always true in this time period then a person would not have told his name directly to anyone whom he did not want to be over him. Was that the case in this culture? How do you know?

The commentary on Exodus, Exodus Rabba, compiled from 300 BC – 50 BC (roughly), though the earliest existing record is from centuries later, is a commentary linked to the Oral Torah, which was traditionally given at the same time as the Written Torah. Numerous records (both Hebrew and non-Hebrew Mesopotamian) have commentary on naming and names.

I’m sorry that you don’t seem to allow God to make plays on words, but don’t fault me – fault the people who’ve believed this and taught it (traditionally) since God gave them the Torah in the first place…

I’m in the process of tearing out Job 38-41 because He gets rather sarcastic there.

Rick,

Iggy – You are so ethereal!

“These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.”

Our only and true reality is found in Christ Jesus.

be blessed,
iggy

Hey Dave, how come Tim Challie’s blog is on your roll. I’ve never been there but doesn’t he graze in a different pasture?

Just asking, I really don’t know except what Inrgid says about him. There’s real research on my part, huh?

You and I frequently graze in the same pasture even if not side by side. I enjoy your blog. Is Challies different than Camp?

Infinity has no opposite. Think outside the box.

God has no opposite.

Oooooh…

-Joe C on lunchbreak…

(Also, in the actual text, YHWH is the same in all cases in Ex 3:14, even though the verb tenses change.)

It’s the person that is changing, not the tense. It’s first person, “I,” as opposed to 3rd person, “he” in verse 15. Simply God is “I am” when He refers to Himself and “He is” when referred to by others.

You might take that up with the Israelites who must have had it wrong in your book for the past 4,000+ years

And just what written 4,000 year old source are you citing?

And why is the name God treated as so holy that it can’t be spoken if the name He gave them was simply a joke?

I’m sorry that you don’t seem to allow God to make plays on words

Of course God makes plays on words. That doesn’t mean that God has to be making a play on words in the case of Yahweh. Your whole argument is based on your belief that God would not give Moses His name here because He didn’t want to show submission to Moses.

And are you assuming that God would have followed cultural constraints? Why would God “bow” to Moses’ thinking that he could have some kind of control over Him by refusing to appear to give him that control?

Yes “I Am” seems like a strange name. So does “the Lord added” “Heel-grasper” “Not-my-People” “Bitter” and many other Hebrew names. They were nonetheless, names.

The commentary on Exodus, Exodus Rabba, compiled from 300 BC – 50 BC (roughly), though the earliest existing record is from centuries later, is a commentary linked to the Oral Torah, which was traditionally given at the same time as the Written Torah. Numerous records (both Hebrew and non-Hebrew Mesopotamian) have commentary on naming and names.

And are these commentaries inspired by God? Do you accept all of the interpretations in these commentaries as absolute truth? It surely appears that way.

And just what written 4,000 year old source are you citing?

The oral Torah.

That doesn’t mean that God has to be making a play on words in the case of Yahweh. Your whole argument is based on your belief that God would not give Moses His name here because He didn’t want to show submission to Moses.

Not submission to Moses – but submission to man. Again – like Dave – you’re trying to bring western cultural analysis to bear toward something written/spoken 1,500 years (give or take) prior to the existence of western culture.

My argument is based upon what is believed to be the Hebrew understanding of the giving of names at the time Moses lived.

The reason this is “nit picking”, and Dave’s questions are not, is because you’re taking an INCREDIBLY minor tangent in the discussion of the OP and trying to play “gotcha”, when there’s nobody alive to be “got” on this one – it’s 4,000 years old.

And why is the name God treated as so holy that it can’t be spoken if the name He gave them was simply a joke?

Not a joke – an ironic rebuke. Quite humorous in its structure, though.

And are these commentaries inspired by God? Do you accept all of the interpretations in these commentaries as absolute truth? It surely appears that way.

They are no more ‘inspired’ by God than a Bible commentary written by John MacArthur (though they are absent the silly Calvinist spin), though I suspect they contain a whole lot more accurate observations on context, since they were written by (or spoken by) first-hand parties, rather than through a lens of eisegetical systematic theology.

Hey, great discussion.

I was at the Everything is Spiritual tour and in my opinion Rob was suggesting Genesis was poetic and not literal. The egghead term for this is the “Literary Framework View.” A description of it can be found in any systematic theology text.

One more thing caught my eye:

the opposide of God is nothingness and chaos.

I completely agree. I actually think this is the Christian explanation for the law of non-contradiction. There is what is and what is not and never the two shall meet. This is (possibly) a necessary logical consequence of God’s existence.

Chris,

I think your interactions with Amy are quite condescending. Some of us aren’t as adept with the Hebrew literature are you seem to be. I think an OTI course is about all the experience I have when it comes to these documents; however, it seems as though Amy has had some significant instruction with the original language or at least knows her way around Bible Works or Accordance. However, that being said, we are much more adept at Scripture, Theology, and Original Language than we are with Hebraic sources. It seems coherant to us that if the Hebrew sources are correct in their commentary, that it should correspond to a plain reading of the text. I don’t think Amy is nit-picking; it’s just that you keep saying “oral torah” and the like, but have failed to direct us to the sources via link or at least provide a quote for us to read. You are expecting us to reverse how we read the plain language of the text based upon your interpretation of a Hebrew commentary, which itself is an interpretation — when you, yourself, as a source, are already suspect in our non-emerging minds.

This brings up an interesting discussion. Do you think that I am capable of even understanding the Old Testament? Or do I need to be educated as a Hebrew before I can understand it? If, even with my limited education in this issues, I am not qualified to understand the finer points of the creation account, how do we expect any of our church members to understand them?

the opposide of God is nothingness and chaos.

I agree with the “nothingness” yet the opposite of God is not chaos as that implies He is not sovereign. God is the God of order and chaos. He is the same God whether in Heaven or Hell… Yet without God we have nothing… God always brought newness to chaos and in that is “creation”. Creation is order out of chaos.

But to say the opposite of God is chaos implies chaos can exist without God. Again, Nothing can exist without God.

iggy

Dave,

For more on “Oral Torah”, I would direct you to the discussion in Brad Young’s “Meet the Rabbis”, which discusses Numerous Hebraic sources and their relevance to Christianity. My initial introduction to this topic (and to Genesis Rabba and the teachings about chaos) were through Dr. Tim Brown at Western Theological Seminary in Holland MI (a Reformed divinity school adjacent to Hope College).

I agree with Rick that what we NEED to understand from scripture is quite simple, and it is only in study and prayer with great assistance from “the helper”, the Holy Spirit, that we go deeper in understanding – for the purpose of service and action that will glorify God.

Most people I know who study Hebrew roots of scripture and the historic Hebrew cultures, fall into one of two traps: either going into so much detail that the eyes glaze over, except for the die-hard learners in the audience – or – not giving enough detail (particularly to tangential issues) and leaving skeptics unsatisfied. In this particular case, and in general, I fall into the latter (as does Bell on many occasions, like with Peter and Jesus walking on the water).

I think your interactions with Amy are quite condescending.

As for my commentary with Amy, you’re probably right to some degree. It is definitely a deficiency of patience on my part in that I find her historic ability (apart from this thread) to find disagreement in the mundane (without even touching on her hyper-hyperbolic hypothetical generation) fatiguing in either its pettiness or thorough obtuseness (the latter in this case). It doesn’t matter if I prove a point, as she will just move onto another tangent or bring in a bizarre hypothetical from left field.

It is definitely a lack of patience and grace on my part, for which my primary means of dealing with it has been to ignore any comment with her name attached to it. In this case, I have no clue why I decided to engage (perhaps that she was at least attempting to go back to the Hebrew this time – I don’t know), but I have regretted it from the moment I hit “submit”.

Paul’s complete lack of patience and grace with Mark was proven to him to be an artifact of pride, as Mark bore out to be a great help to him later. I suspect I may be being taught the same lesson, to some degree, as well…

I would apologize for my lack of patience, but I would doubt my own apology because I don’t find a well-spring of patience within me. I’d pray for patience, but I don’t know sometimes that I want to learn it – praying for patience is a pretty risky thing to do… Perhaps this is God’s answer to my half-hearted prayer for patience, and I’m failing miserably in learning the lesson…

As far as chaos goes, maybe I’m just not comfortable calling the abyss “chaos.” I need some time in the stacks to do some significant research.

Dave, I would start in Genesis 1:2 – where chaos (formless), abyss(deep) and waters are all tied together as the same “anti-entity” which God “hovered over” (being separate from it).

The Hebrew fear of large bodies of water was driven by this belief – that the deep waters were representative of the abyss and chaos, the nothingness. You should not have any problem finding references to this linkage – particularly in commentaries on Genesis 1:2 and Hebrew culture.

In Hebrew thinking, the seas and oceans ARE earthly representations of the Abyss and chaos. What is it that destroys (un-creates) the world in the time of Noah? The waters.

Fire, on the other hand, is a symbol of God which purifies – its destructive powers work against the impure and evil – those things which are of the abyss and chaos. Thus, in Revelation it is the lake of fire which destroys death and the abyss.

You are expecting us to reverse how we read the plain language of the text based upon your interpretation of a Hebrew commentary, which itself is an interpretation — when you, yourself, as a source, are already suspect in our non-emerging minds.

First off, while I am a friend to emerging folks, I would say that my general theology is much older than the emergent/emerging movement – I am primarily a descendant from the Restoration movement.

Secondly, and here is my frustration, with the issue of God’s name, it is hard for me to explain to you because what each of us sees as the ‘plain meaning’ is different. It’s like me trying to tell you how a song sounds or how a picture looks. The OT, in particular, was written by people (inspired by God) whose primary world-view was concrete and rooted in pictures and symbols – not abstract and conceptual.

Perhaps with the issue of God’s name, the word “subdue” is not the right one to attach to naming, but rather “define”. Your name defines you. Woman is “from man”. Jacob is “heel-grasper”, which is colloquial for being a trickster – which he is (pulling someone’s leg – tricking them). And on.

God, on the other hand, has a “name” that does the opposite of what a name is supposed to do. Instead of defining Him, it leaves Him without definition. The name He gives to Moses is highly ironic. To reword it in potential vernacular:

Moses: God, tell me who you are.

God: I am who I am.

OR

Moses: God, define yourself for me.

God: I am who I am.

This is the point being made by Jewish commentators throughout history – beginning in the oral Torah, parts of which are recorded in the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud. It is not ‘dissing’ God, but rather respecting Him, because His very name implies we cannot define Him or box Him in.

But to say the opposite of God is chaos implies chaos can exist without God. Again, Nothing can exist without God.

Iggy – chaos IS an absence of God – it is not a thing, but an absence of it. Your last statement is correct (though not in the way you probably meant it)- “nothing” can exist without God, because it IS nothing.

This is why sin cannot exist in the presence of God – because it is the absence of God (chaos).

God is self-sufficient, powerful, incomprehensible, viritually undefinable in the sense that humans will always be grasping at his essence. That is the very nature of revelation about God — it is merely descriptive and not comprehensive of his nature.

Excellent! I think maybe we can bridge the gap here:

As I’ve mentioned, Hebrew language, thought and writing is all about being concrete and visual. Western thought, though, is abstract and definitional. (see here for a short primer).

What you just wrote is so thoroughly Western, it is almost a case study in the difference between West and East (with neither being the “right” view or “wrong” view). Re-read what you wrote – everything there is definitional.

What you wrote about God is focused on defining his attributes. The Hebrew view of God, though, is focused on relationship with Him – the relational aspects. Hebrew thinkers focus on God in simile/metaphor that is real and tangible – eagles’ wings, bread, fire, a shepherd, etc.

As a simple test, try this:

1) Write down the words you just wrote and other definitional words about God (omnipotent, omniscient, etc.). Close your eyes and try to picture what He looks like from those words.

2) Now, read Psalm 23. Close your eyes and try to picture what God looks like from those words.

Can you see the difference between the two?

So, from a Western standpoint, God gave his name (”I am”), and we can take from this lots of abstract concepts on why He would choose this name for Himself. We can bullet-point a list of abstract reasons he would give “I am” as His name.

From a Hebrew standpoint, though, God did not give His ‘name’ – He did not describe/define/relate Himself, but rather, He forced Hebrew thinkers to look at the PICTURE painted by this.

Q: Who are you (define yourself for me, so that I can compare what you are like with what the other gods are like)?

A: I am who I am.

Unspoken Response: AARGH! Why couldn’t I have asked God a better question?

A: Just to make the point for you, I want you to call me “I am” as my name forever, because I cannot be defined or compared to anyone else.

I have to tell you that this is very frustrating for me, because it took me so long to be able to be flexible enough to try to look at the pictures presented in scripture and not just the dry, definitional words contained therein.

It’s kind of like those magic-eye posters with all the dots and patterns – once you see how to “see” the picture, you wonder how you never saw it before, and it is frustrating when you show it to someone else and they just see dots and patterns.

Also, whenever you see a new magic-eye poster, you quickly see the image in it, whereas the person who didn’t see it before in another poster still probably doesn’t see it in the new one.

In this particular case, my frustration lies in trying to find a definitional way of describing a picture. Sometimes it is easier than others – usually part of the background/setup of the discussion.
_________

However, even in your apology, it seems that you managed to get in some pot-shots.

How do you describe what it is that drives you nuts (even when you know that it shouldn’t), while pointing out that it is likely part of mutual shortcomings? There’s probably a good way, but I didn’t find it.

“I think I understand what you are trying to tell me, although I’m not sure the knife God has given me is sharp enough to slice the meat that thinly.”

I might steal that line later in referencing someone’s attempt to nuance his doctrinal statements and try to have it both ways. I may or may not give you credit, Dave.

=)

I appreciate Dave’s comments on Chris’s condescending attitude towards me. And I agree that even in answering the question Chris took the opportunity to further denigrate me.

Chris, your attitude of not wanting to have your opinions questioned and your derogatory marks towards those with whom you disagree is a reflection of who you are, not who I am.

I showed someone who has had reason to look into the name Yahweh over a period of years, from many different sources, and been in discussions with many people. That individual has never heard of your interpretation before. It bothers me that you present it as something that only someone trying to cause trouble would want to discuss.

Here’s how this discussion looks to me. You presented a story about Yahweh that I had never heard before, and that the biblical text doesn’t support. Along with that you also made statements about God never saying that His creation was completed, when the text clearly says that He did.

I would much rather discuss biblical texts than anything else discussed here. It rarely happens. So we were discussing it, and then all of a sudden you throw out a comment about my nit-picking. Why?

This is not a mundane topic. And does the fact that I am asking questions about it make me obtuse?

The Biblical text is all I have in front of me. You are asking me and others to accept some interpretation that your whole attitude has shown you see as authoritative. We don’t even know what your sources are – for all I know we might even interpret what you read differently than you interpret it. For all we know there might be other viewpoints on this issue even in the traditions themselves. I have recently learned that I could have access to some of the other sources you use, if you would provide citations. But then I’m still left with how I would deal with passed down, recorded after a couple of thousand years traditions, in the case of the Oral Torah, versus the authority of God’s Word.

I’m not saying that they would always or even often contradict each other. (I have never looked at the Mishneh.) It seems like there would be things in there that would be useful to think about and consider, that might give insight into scripture. ButI hope that if I ever have the chance to study them and find them useful, I will not use them arrogantly. And I hope I would not get to the point where I saw them as absolute guidelines for interpreting a passage.

Along with that you also made statements about God never saying that His creation was completed, when the text clearly says that He did.

Actually, it says that the heavens and earth were completed…

I wrote:

God continually calls His creation “good”, but he never calls it “complete”

Genesis 2:1
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

The heavens and the earth were defined in Genesis 1,

By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he ceased from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

But then, we read that there are still things that are not complete, which God ’subcontracts’ to Adam:

The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. [...]

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

God did not call creation finished – if it was, Adam would have had no role to “work”.

So – on day 7, God ceases from His work (after the heavens and the earth were complete – Man does not create life or planets or nature, after all, but rather creates from creation), and he passes work on to Adam immediately thereafter.

Regarding the end of your last comment, this is what you previously said,

God NEVER declares the world ‘finished’, but rather ‘good’, and he gives man purpose, which is a continuation of that creation. Day seven does not end with ‘evening and morning’.

Comment from Chris L
Time: February 27, 2008, 11:19 am

What did you mean by “world” in your comment? Had you actually previously noticed Genesis 2:1? “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.” This verse is given after God has created, well, everything.

But then, we read that there are still things that are not complete, which God ’subcontracts’ to Adam:

Isn’t the phrase “heaven and earth” used to describe all of the creation, that has taken place in chapter 1? God says it’s complete. You’re saying it’s not complete. Where does the Bible say that? I assume you’re using the word in a different way when you talk about what Adam does and what we are doing?

Is this part of your kingdom theology? (Sorry if I’m not calling it the right thing?) What I’m trying to articulate is, is this kind of thinking an essential part of believing that we are restoring the kingdom and when it is “restored” (?) God will come back. Sorry if I’m totally or partially misrepresenting what you believe.

As far as the Oral Torah goes, I can’t help but still wonder why you answered with “Oral Torah” when I asked you what 4,000 year old written source you were using. An oral tradition is still oral, no matter how accurate you might think it is.

Where were the people who knew the “Oral Torah” when the “Book of the Law” was lost? It seems that there would have been some around who would have been keeping the words of this book, part of a book, or books (possibly the whole Pentateuch) known. Yet Josiah and the people realize that their ancestors have not been obeying the book. The idea seems to be that at some point people didn’t even know what was in the book.

Was there full agreement, when the traditions were written down, on which traditions were accurate, on how to write them down? (Amy)

There were some differences in interpretation, though for the most part, the latter scholars would build upon the earlier ones, either in agreement or in parallel (since it is possible for some passages to have multiple aspects of truth associated with them). In the case of naming, there are a number of references (I don’t know which ones – I picked it up in a lecture, not a book) on Moses’ asking for a name and receiving something different, because of the mysteries of God and the limitations of language. Chris

So, your whole argument was based on something you heard from someone else, which you have not checked out yourself. As for these “references” you don’t really know which category they fall into (a “parallel” from 4,000 years ago, or an interpretation, understanding built on another interpretation). You also don’t know what other interpretations are given in the works the lecturer used, I assume? Also, were you hearing exact quotes from the lecturer, or his interpretation of what he was reading?

Where did the idea that God was being humorous when he gave His name as “I Am,” come from, the lecturer, or one of the lecturer’s sources, or yourself?

realize that much of the humor in the Bible misses us, but God’s answer to Moses is pretty darn humorous.
Moses: What should I tell them your name is?
God: I am who I am.
That is His initial answer, and THAT is downright funny.

May I suggest that the way you have presented this issue, especially to me, without references, suggesting that what you say is indisputable 4,000 year old fact, in light of your revealed sources, is intellectually dishonest.

You said, at the beginning of my questioning:

The reason this is “nit picking”, and Dave’s questions are not, is because you’re taking an INCREDIBLY minor tangent in the discussion of the OP and trying to play “gotcha”, when there’s nobody alive to be “got” on this one – it’s 4,000 years old.

Later you said

You might take that up with the Israelites who must have had it wrong in your book for the past 4,000+ years…

Basically here’s what you have “said” to me:

1. Listen to me. Believe me, even though you don’t know what the source of my information is. Believe me because I am Chris and I know all there is to know about ancient Hebraic sources. Don’t question what I say.
2. You are so arrogant as to think you know more than the Israelites who have believed this for 4,000 plus years (all of them, always, agreeing absolutely, I know this even though I didn’t look at the original sources.)
3. I am a scholar. I am trying to be so patient with Amy, who is nit-picking. She shouldn’t have to check these things out on her own or be concerned that what I am saying doesn’t match up with how she understands the Bible.

And are these commentaries inspired by God? Do you accept all of the interpretations in these commentaries as absolute truth? It surely appears that way. (Amy)

They are no more ‘inspired’ by God than a Bible commentary written by John MacArthur (though they are absent the silly Calvinist spin), though I suspect they contain a whole lot more accurate observations on context, since they were written by (or spoken by) first-hand parties, rather than through a lens of eisegetical systematic theology

“They are no more inspired by a Bible commentary written by John MacArthur” Then why can’t I have a different opinion without being treated as if there is no other opinion?

written by (or spoken by) first-hand parties,

That is extremely misleading. There is no “first-hand” party from Moses’ day speaking orally to us.

As far as the Oral Torah goes, I can’t help but still wonder why you answered with “Oral Torah” when I asked you what 4,000 year old written source you were using. An oral tradition is still oral, no matter how accurate you might think it is.

Where were the people who knew the “Oral Torah” when the “Book of the Law” was lost? It seems that there would have been some around who would have been keeping the words of this book, part of a book, or books (possibly the whole Pentateuch) known. Yet Josiah and the people realize that their ancestors have not been obeying the book. The idea seems to be that at some point people didn’t even know what was in the book.

I answered “Oral Torah”, because that was its form at the time of Moses – it was not written down until later, and (as noted previously), oral sources carried down are not considered “unreliable” in the way single-eyewitness accounts today are.

As for the latter question, tradition holds that there has always been a faithful remnant carrying down both oral and written Torah, even in the days between Hezekiah and Josiah, and during the Babylonian captivity. The Aleinu, for instance, is believed to be the prayer said by Joshua before entering the promised land, and it is still recited today, daily (though some liberal Jewish scholars don’t like to place it with Joshua – the same way that liberal scholars like placing Revelation near the year 100 – because such placement would give credence to God’s providence, something liberal scholars don’t like to do).

There is no “first-hand” party from Moses’ day speaking orally to us.

“First-hand” referring to people living in the culture, and the nature of oral transmission.

Although Moses initially asks for the name of God so that he could take it back to Israel “not a single instance is reported in the Torah where he is shown to have actually used it.” From this we can conclude that the revelation was never meant for the people at all, nor did Moses really inquire for the sake of the people: Moses had asked for himself, and the answer he receives is also meant for him.–Plaut, p 405-406.

And God said, “At first say unto them, ‘I am that I am, ‘ that, when they have learnt that there is a difference between Him that is and him that is not, they may be further taught that there is no name whatever that can properly be assigned to Me, who am the only being to whom existence belongs. –Philo, from Plaut, p 408

On the contrary, Moses used the name of God immediately in Exodus 4:1, talking to God. And in Exodus 5:1 and 3 he also uses it, talking to Pharoah. And in Exodus 13:3 he uses it, talking to the people. And on and on . . .

And if Moses is the author of the Torah as many Jews think, then there are probably thousands of cases of his using the name of God.

Plaut is referring to “I Am,” instead of “He is,” translated “LORD, “Yahweh. That Moses understood that the name he was to use was “He is” (Yahweh) can be understood from the fact that he uses it repeatedly.

Exodus 3:14 and 15 says: God replied, I AM THE ONE WHO ALWAYS IS. Just tell them, I AM has sent me to you. God also said, “Tell them, The LORD (”He is,” Yahweh),” the God of your ancestors — the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob — has sent me to you. This will be my name forever; it has always been my name, and it will be used throughout all generations. (NLT)

The ONLY difference is the essence of these two names is the person – “I” versus “He.” If there was something about the “Is” part that God didn’t want shared then he would not have instructed Moses to use the name Yahweh.

I might “like” what Herz says, but I would want to know who he is and where he’s coming from and how he came to his conclusions, because he is actually adding quite a bit of his own thoughts to “I am who I am/ I will be who I will be.” What he’s saying contradicts your analysis of the name of God having nothing to do with his nature. Maybe you realized that.

I’ve just done a cursory search for when Moses specifically spoke, and I’m not finding him using YHWH when talking to the people. This view, though, would not take into account the written Torah, and that Moses (traditionally) dictated this orally to the people, even though the reader assumes this when reading Exodus.

Maybe you could look at what I said before you decided that I was nit-picking (you said that after my SECOND comment in this thread) and what Dave has said throughout this (with which you apparently have no problem.) I see absolutely nothing in those comments that deserved that comment. Your attitude started showing then and has gone downhill since. There was NO reason for this thread to get personal. YOU made it that way.

If I had time and emotional energy I might just point out to you all the derogatory, condescending things you have said to me/about me on this thread.

But, let me just point out one:

In this case, I have no clue why I decided to engage (perhaps that she was at least attempting to go back to the Hebrew this time – I don’t know), but I have regretted it from the moment I hit “submit”.

This is especially ridiculous: “She was at least attempting to go back to the Hebrew this time.” I don’t recall any other discussions where “going back to the Hebrew” has been part of an argument. As opposed to what, saying something totally unintelligent and irrelevant or God forbid, bringing in some scripture that couldn’t possibly apply? Also, are you implying that you have some superior knowledge of Hebrew? (I “attempt,” you “succeed,” I suppose.) Are you implying that I am incapable of handling a discussion about language issues? Just what is your background in Hebrew?

I’ve just done a cursory search for when Moses specifically spoke, and I’m not finding him using YHWH when talking to the people.

Try Exodus 13:3, 5, 6, 8, 9; Ex 35:1, Leviticus 10:6, etc. Phaul appeared to be talking about ‘eHYeH,” instead of YaHWeH.

I’m just doing an eye search in my English bibles (NIV and NLT) and assuming that they have translated Yahweh as LORD. Maybe a bad assumption but I don’t have an interlinear available at my house.

Rick,
Well, it could have been worse. At least you weren’t imagining you were back in biology class dissecting a cat.

If the “name” thing captures very little New Testament focus in the context of the present discussion, then it is a sidebar and not all that important.

It was a sidebar comment, Rick, and I didn’t make it the focus of discussion… I’m no longer in the discussion, though, so no worries about cats or frogs, etc…

^ Ouch . . .

You know, this probably isn’t any of my business since I haven’t been a part of this conversation, but I’d just like to share my humble opinion. This thread has some very interesting information and would have been a valuable discussion for me, had it not been for the personal attacks . . . some comments don’t need to be taken so personally. Both sides of the arguments had valid points and opinions. Let’s respect each other in a Christ-like manner, shall we? The way I see it, having a knowledge of the Hebrew culture is quite helpful to understanding the Bible, but it does not add or take away to Scripture, nor does it have anything to do with one’s salvation and relationship with the Lord. If Biblical knowledge is not shared or questioned with love, than we’re probably no better off having that information when it comes to our relationship with God and people. Hope that makes sense.

How come you never take my bait, Chris? I know, you know how I feel about you even if you are a leaning emer…never mind. You know what, when someones says “I respect you” it many times is an insult.

That is why, my friend, I will not say “I respect you”. I happen to know that Zan is the deep one in your neighborhood!

If

the “name” thing captures very little New Testament focus in the context of the present discussion, then it is a sidebar and not all that important.

Rick,
I’m not sure what you’re after (I see the New Testament as an incomplete story without all the background of the Old Testament) – but this scripture ties in very well with the discussion of the name of God:

John 8:58-59, in which Jesus basically calls Himself “I Am” and faces stoning.

Also, in church this past Sunday, someone read this scripture which I thought brings out very much the importance of the name of Yahweh, and what He chose to emphasize when He brought it out:

Exodus 34: (A New Copy of the Covenant) Then the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud and called out his own name, “the LORD,” as Moses stood there in his presence. He passed in front of Moses and said, “I am the LORD, I am the LORD, the merciful and gracious God. I am slow to anger and rich in unfailing love and faithfulness. I show this unfailing love to many thousands by forgiving every kind of sin and rebellion. Even so I do not leave sin unpunished, but I punish the children for the sins of their parents to the third and fourth generations.” Moses immediately fell to the ground and worshiped . . . (The rest is great too.)