Landmark Baptist

I am ready also it has been fun and I have enjoyed the study.

In initiating this thread, I hoped to challenge study on some of the richest and most interesting parts of the Bible: the beginning. I have set forth solid reasons for what I am convinced the Bible is saying, and could set forth still more about Genesis One. The language is so filled with strong positive indicators.
Most anyone can believe anything if they just want to believe it. However, it is important to know the reasons why belief is invoked. Should there be others out there who wish to discuss details of this thread, I would be happy to engage in discussion.

It is a shame that some of us are just not smart enough to believe the scriptures say just what we believe also. I believe that even though there is a difference in what some may think they know by use of the language and some believe what they do by studying all of the scriptures in concert. The language is a good tool but it is only a tool that can be abused as all tools can be.
In trying to make the languages say what we want them to say we sometimes forget about the rest of scriptures backing our belief of the scriptures.
In showing the use of the language you fail to compare that belief to other passages.

Goodness! I thought that is just what I was doing. It appears that you are really not done with this discussion. So, would you mind giving some specific examples of what you mean!

I am through with this discussion as I believe what I do based on my studies and you believe what you do based on your studies and I cannot see us coming together on the subject.

Fair enough! However it cannot be left hanging that I failed to compare scripture with scripture when in fact I did. Genesis 1:2 states that "But the earth (was)became without form (tohu)..."
Isaiah 45:18 God flats out says "...I did not make it in vain (tohu). It is your position, if I understood you correctly, that God did in fact make the earth tohu. At least Genesis 1:2 describes it as "tohu" and the verse I compared it to underscores God saying, "I did not make it tohu." Deal with this seeming contradiction as you wish as it is not my intent to change your mind, just callenge you to study and to think.
So, ending the discussion here, between us, is indeed fair enough on my part, just don't fire a parting shot that I failed to compare scripture with scripture and good to you.

Hey Bro. Dillard, I enjoyed reading this thread. To me this opinion seems to be in defense of a "Gap" theory. Since modern dating techniques including carbon datings can't accurately date anything before 3000 B.C. and seeing that the "Gap" theory was actually a new doctrine that popped up after the "evolution" trials how important do you feel that this teaching is?

Also I was wondering.....just for fun.....have you come across any evidence in your language studies that there may have been people or animals on the earth before it went "tofu"?

Have you ever heard in the Hebrew language of Adam actually being created asexual and able to reproduce on his own before God made Eve. I heard some guy say that in his language studies and it blew my mind.

One other thing...I was reading a Jew that was saying in the Hebrew that it is possible that Holy Spirit was gendered as a female? I have done a bunch of study on this and can't find anyone conservatives that have written any defense against this....espescially referring to the word Shekinah.

I would love to hear what you have to say on these things? You seem pretty knowledgable in the languages.

thanks

It is true that carbon and other testing methods on things of extreme age is dependent upon atmospheric conditions of the present having always been. Of course, that is not true. So, testing of age beyond the Noahic Flood is invalid for modern, known means; however, since Genesis was written by Moses, the evidence of this knowledge has been around since roughly 1500 B.C. Not since the Scopes trial. Moreover, it was reinforced by linquistic experts who invented the pointed vowel system to preserve the proper pronunciation and connotations of the Hebrew language in early A.D. dates. One might argue that the teaching of the global shape of the earth has only been around since post-Colombus days, but Isaiah spoke of the "circle of the earth." As I stated in an earlier post, I do not consider a period of time existing between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 to be theoretical, but essential from the evidence of both language construction and overt statements of the scriptures that would otherwise be an outright contradiction.
As to the importance of this knowledge, it obviously has nothing to do with one's salvation, but, could not the same be said with regard to the entire book of Genesis or the entire Torah? There are many things taught in the scriptures that is good for one to know and anything the scriptures teach or strongly connote is indeed important. However, like the timing of the rapture, I would not break fellowship with anyone over this teaching.
I have long believed that Adam was indeed asexual with the possibility of reproducing himself before the creation of Eve. The evidence of this is not as strong as the creation evidence, but is strong enough to cause those who give much time to language studies this idea. However, I do not spend time with this issue, since the evidence is not strong.
Regarding the indication of life before the earth became "tohu" I find no evidence other than the fact that God said He did not create the earth "tohu" but He created it to be inhabited. Isaiah 45:18. However, even though He created it to be inhabited, there is no statement or even connotation that the earth was in fact inhabited before the fifth day of reconstruction. Still, as a matter of supposition, I have no problem in seeing that time period as the time for pre-historic animals. I certainly do not think it was accidental that Lucifer came to the life-supporting earth instead of some other planet when he was cast out.
There is much to be learned from the university of the Word. It has no bacculaurite degree, but keeps the serious student in an everlearning mode. I highly recommend it. Solomon said, "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2 The delightful squeals of "eureka" are neither new nor terminal to the serious student of the Word.
Finally, with regard to your question of the gender of the Holy Spirit, I take the position that the Holy Spirit is without gender as we know it. I have a very hard time picturing the Holy Spirit with sexual organs by which gender is determined. Most of the time I refer to the Holy Spirit as "It" because this is the pronoun used in original languages and because of the aforementioned reason. Sometimes I am criticized for this, but so be it.
I do hope some of these things may be helpful to you. I encourage and challenge you and all the readers to study the Word and to be sure of your position before engaging in criticism that may not be constructive.
Good to you.

I have to say bro. dillard that we disagree on some methodology but I really enjoyed this response. I appreciate your honesty.

On the question of Holy Spirit's gender....I do not believe that there are reproductive organs involved in the issue either however just like God prefers to be called Father(progenitor as it were)which implies the preference of being viewed as masculine in nature have you found any evidence in the OT Hebrew that Holy Spirit has preference of being viewed as feminine in nature?

The reason that I bring this up is really based on the Hebrew “Ruach HaKodesh” which is literally a feminine gender term......Is this correct or not?

On the reconstruction teachings....Have you found any evidence besides scriptures that this was a position held by our spiritual ancestors, seeing as tradition is sometimes part of doctrinal clarity ...Any historical writings prior to the "Scopes" trials.

No, I have not found any indication that feminine gender as we understand that in the English language is ever to be applied to the Holy Spirit. The problem regarding gender in the study of Hebrew or Greek is that the languages use masculine, feminine and common gender as methods of language construction. None of these have anything to do with sex.
Additionally, I am of the persuasion that the term "father" does not necessarily imply progenitor. Rather it designates origin as in "fatherland" the devil being the "father" of the lie and/or authority such as "city fathers". Procreation is unique to temporal, fleshly life on earth.
No, I do not know of any writings regarding the Genesis account of creation, destruction and reconstruction by men of great antiquity. However, I would also add that my research of the matter has not gone far nor has it been intense. Still, rather than depending on human confirmation of a Biblical teaching, I would much prefer Biblical confirmation of anything a human teaches.
Brother Smith, my forty-nine years in the ministry have been a continual learning experience. My passion is the Word and I do not intend to be anything but honest in my dealing with it or in conveying my understanding of to others. I do appreciate your interest and hope this may in some way be helpful.

I too prefer scripture over anything that humans teach however it seems that we put a great deal of emphasis (as an association) on what people before us have taught in other areas so It seemed wise to ask.

I think you might have misjudged my use of the word progenitor.The word for Father that is used to refer to human fathers is the same term used for God in many instances. Obviously it was not used in relating to physical (sex) but the originator and founder of life ( which is a proper definition of the word) and also most accurately used in relating to spirit life which man can not reproduce. Zech 12:1

The following was written by RP Nettlehorst he is a Baptist and has his Phd in Semitic Languages he writes the following and I was wondering if you could critique it for me.....I would greatly appreciate it. He writes,

I was teaching advanced Hebrew, and I had decided to take the class through the book of Judges. As we read along, I noticed something odd about Judges 3:10:

The Spirit of Yahweh came upon Caleb's younger brother...
In English, this passage from Judges doesn't appear startling, but in Hebrew something strange leapt out at me: "came upon" was a third person FEMININE verb, indicating it's subject "Spirit" was being understood as a feminine noun. Hebrew is not like Aramaic in its use of the word "spirit". While the word is exclusively feminine in Aramaic, in Hebrew it is sometimes masculine. Therefore, the question that came to mind was why had the author of Judges chosen here to make the Spirit of Yahweh feminine, when he could just as easily have made it masculine? Oh well.

I just shrugged my shoulders and went on, not overly concerned. Occasionally, I thought, one finds something inexplicable in the Bible: no big deal. But then came Judges 6:34. Again, "Spirit of Yahweh" was feminine.

At this point I decided to consult the concordance. Much to my surprise, every occurrence of "Spirit of Yahweh" in Judges is feminine. As I pondered that, I recalled Genesis 1:2, the first occurrence of "Spirit of God" in the Bible, and realized to my shock that it too is feminine.

Back to the concordance. Out of 84 OT uses of the word "spirit", in contexts traditionally assumed to be references to the Holy Spirit, 75 times it is either explicitly feminine or indeterminable (due to lack of a verb or adjective). Only nine times can "spirit" be construed as masculine, and in those cases it is unclear that it is a reference to God's Holy Spirit anyway. (Please see Appendix 3 for a complete list and detailed discussion of the usages.)

The New Testament references to the Holy Spirit are not helpful for conclusively deciding on the gender of the Holy Spirit, since "spirit" in Greek is neuter, and so is referred to as "it" by the New Testament writers.

The conclusion of all this is that our traditional assumption of a masculine Spirit is questionable; in fact, the evidence seems overwhelming that the Spirit should be viewed as "She", which does seem to make sense, since the other two members of the Godhead are labeled "Father" and "Son".

What are the theological implications of a feminine Holy Spirit? There are four:

A feminine Holy Spirit clarifies how women can also be said to be created in the "image of God". It has long been recognized that he Godhead must include some feminine aspects, since Genesis 1:26-27 explicitly states that both men and women were created in God's image.
A feminine Holy Spirit explains the identity of the personified wisdom in Proverbs 8:12-31:

I, wisdom, dwell together with prudence;
I possess knowledge and discretion.
To fear Yahweh is to hate evil;
I hate pride and arrogance,
evil behavior and perverse speech.
Counsel and sound judgment are mine;
I have understanding and power.
By me kings reign
and rulers make laws that are just;
by me princes govern,
and all nobles who rule on earth.
I love those who love me,
and those who seek me find me.
With me are riches and honor,
enduring wealth and prosperity.
My fruit is better than fine gold;
what I yield surpasses choice silver.
I walk in the way of righteousness,
along the paths of justice,
bestowing wealth on those who love me
and making their treasuries full.
Yahweh possessed me at the beginning of his work,
before his deeds of old;
I was appointed from eternity,
from the beginning,
before the world began.
Where there were no oceans, I was given birth,
when there were no springs abounding with water;
before the hills, I was given birth,
before he made the earth or its fields
or any of the dust of the world.
I was there when he set the heavens in place,
when he marked out the horizon
on the face of the deep,
when he established the clouds above
and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
when he gave the sea its boundary
so the waters would not overstep his command,
and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
Then I was the craftsman at his side.
I was filled with delight day after day,
rejoicing in his whole world
and delighting in mankind....
Some commentators have tried to tie this personification of wisdom to the idea of Christ as divine "Word" [Gk. logos]. Unfortunately for this theory, the genders of the words in question get in the way. The gender of the word "wisdom" is feminine, and is therefore personified as a woman. This makes a direct identification of "wisdom" with "Christ" virtually impossible.

Other commentators have pictured "wisdom" as a created being, like an angel; better have been those who argue that the personification of wisdom in Proverbs 8 is simply a literary device, without objective reality.

However, if the Holy Spirit is feminine, then the identification is relatively easy: Genesis 1:2 pictures the Spirit of God hovering over the deep, active in creating the world, just as Proverbs describes. Both the Old and New Testament connect the idea of teaching and imparting wisdom with the function of the Holy Spirit (Ex. 31:3; 35:31; Acts 6:3; Ephesians 1:17; Luke 12:12; and John 14:25-26).

The third benefit of recognizing the femininity of the Holy Spirit is that it explains the subservient role that the Spirit plays. The Bible seems to indicate that the Spirit does not speak for itself or about itself; rather the Spirit only speaks what it hears. The Spirit is said to have come into the world to glorify Christ (See John 16:13-14 and Acts 13:2). In contrast, it should be noted that the Scripture represents both the Father and Son speaking from and of themselves.
Finally, a feminine Holy Spirit, with a Father and Son as the rest of the Trinity, may help explain why the family is the basic unit of human society.

I had to be away from my computer for a few days, but I am back. Jon, your early statements above and the work of Nettlehorst opens a can of worms that has wide lattitude and multiple digression potentials.
You indicate that man can reproduce offspring but cannot reproduce offspring with a spirit nature. Then what is your thinking as to how man gets his spiritual nature. Mormons believe that for every child that is born, God must have intercourse with one of his many wives to produce a spirit for the person being born. I know you do not believe anything even remotely resembling that, but I would find it interesting to know what you do think as to how a newborn child got his spiritual nature.
I would credit Mr. Nettlehorst with doing some thinking (rare these days) but it seems he is caught in the trap of insisting gender in Hebrew means sex. I insist it does not! Although he rightfully acknowledges that the New Testament Greek references the Holy Spirit at "it" he seems to discount that fact, saying it is of no help, and continues to insist on a feminine gender relating to feminine role-playing as we know it.
He assumes and assumes that we assume that the Holy Spirit is a masculine spirit. I do not, have not, and will not. Again, I do not see gender as it applies to sex anywhere in the Godhead. In the article you quoted, he thinks he has discovered the feminine part of the Godhead in the Spirit since the other two are called Father and Son. Certainly, this was tossed around in my Hebrew class as a student, but was discounted by all concerned. Continuing on:
Females are created in the image of God even as males are. Again this does not pose a theological problem and is totally unrelated to sex. Both males and females are in the image of God in that they are mind, body, and spirit in the similitude of the Godhead.
I would argue that Proverbs 8:12-31 is indeed a literary personification of Wisdom and not an allusion to the Holy Spirit. He argues that this cannot be alluding to Christ the Word because the genders get in the way. Again he has fallen into the pitfall of gender in language equating it to sexual identification.
I certainly would not argue that the Holy Spirit plays a subservient role to the Father and/or the Son. I would argue that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal entities of the Holy Trinity that are in every minute detail and respect in total unity and harmony.
Finally, he uses the supposed femininity of the Spirit to help explain why the family is the basic unit of society. I would argue that the family is the basic unit of society because God so created them and intended that they should so function in earthly life. Jesus made it clear that sexual distinctions all disappear in the eternal realm; hence, destroying any notion that we are modeled after some sort of eternal gender.
It is true that in the Hebrew language, verbs and subjects agree in gender, number, and definiteness as a general rule. If any disagreement occurs in this or in normal syntax, it is for the purpose of emphasis. Hebrew is much more orriental than occidental. As such it poses significant challenges to the occidental mind. One such challenge is the need to understand gender as language distinctions only and not related to sex or the related characteristics of human gender and/or the roles they play.
It would probably blow a lot of minds away to understand that one of the greater Old Testament names of God "El Shaddai" (God Almighty) is a name that indicates one who nourishes as to succour on His breast. Here we are not dealing with anything to do with gender in the language, but an over-all picture of the tenderloving nature of our Heavenly Father toward His children.

Where did the spirit that is within man come from.

Zechariah 12:1 says that God forms the spirit that is within man. Obviously I am not mormon and do not believe that our spirits were already in existance.

The forming of the spirit in man is an act of creation....which only God can do....compare with Amos 4:13 I believe "formeth" is connected with the act of creation.

Then there is the life of the spirit....the born again experience....only God can reproduce that also.....so either way he is a progenitor in the strict sense of the word.


On a second note, you wrote....
It is true that in the Hebrew language, verbs and subjects agree in gender, number, and definiteness as a general rule. If any disagreement occurs in this or in normal syntax, it is for the purpose of emphasis. Hebrew is much more orriental than occidental. As such it poses significant challenges to the occidental mind. One such challenge is the need to understand gender as language distinctions only and not related to sex or the related characteristics of human gender and/or the roles they play.

So if this is true....is the only way to determine the gender by context? I ask this because there are an abundance of instances when gender is obviously more than a language distinction......I am taking your word on this but do you have anything that I can refer to in documenting this statement that gender is always and only a language distinction in the Hebrew? I would greatly appreciate that.

I know someone I am dealing with on this issue and I need a little more certainty to feel confident in dealing with this. Espescially with the statement "It is true that in the Hebrew language, verbs and subjects agree in gender, number, and definiteness as a general rule" and Judges 3:10. Thanks

Certainly, there is no argument that God is the author and giver of life in whatever form it may appear. However, he gave to men as well as to other forms of life on earth, the power of procreation. It would appear in animal life that procreation occurs simply as an animal instinct of nature and the offspring bears resemblance and walks in the same paths of nature as its progenitors. Could not the same be said of man? Of course the ability to reason and the spirit nature of man are what sets him apart, but the point is man is intricately three things and his offspring is born with a threefold nature regardless of race, creed, color or any other consideration. I could not argue that God gave any less consideration to the body or mind of a human than to his spirit in formation.
Truly, there would be no argument regarding the spiritual new birth process. It is of God and not of man.
I shall take some time soon to research again the questions you pose on the Hebrew Language. My first introduction to Hebrew was through the textbook written by Yates and revised by Owens. I believe it is now out of print. However, I have referenced many textbooks and other related materials over the years. I am certain that Yates taught that Hebrew verbs and nouns agree in gender, number and definiteness. Perhaps I will have more for you on that in a little while.
Regarding gender, this is also a ground rule in the study of Hebrew. Words have gender: some masculine, some feminine, and some common, but they are unrelated to sex. Of course, if a man is being referenced, the word designating him will appear in masculine gender. If a woman is referenced, the word will appear in feminine gender. But error is sure to occur when sex is applied to other terms that are masculine or feminine that do not definitely reference a sexual being. In the case under discussion (Holy Spirit), it is clear that it is not a sexual being and even though the term “Spirit” is in Hebrew a feminine word, it is just that – a feminine word as are hundreds of others.

thanks Brother Dillard, have a blessed day

Somehow, this thread strayed far afield from its intended discussion of Genesis One. However, it is hoped the discussion has been profitable. The thread remains open for discussion regarding Genesis One.