The Phantom “Was”
[courtesy Google Images]
I believe and have argued that the Attorney General dropped the case because of the Freedom of Religion defense that I (with the grace of God) presented. That defense was based on the following facts:
1) Genesis 1:26-28 declares man to be made in the image of God and given dominion over the animals (which were not made in God’s image);
2) no Christian or Jew who based his faith in part on Genesis 1:26-28 could be charged under laws that presumed people to be “animals” without violating his Freedom of Religion; and
3) the drug and medical device laws under which I and the other six defendants were charged presumed us all to be “animals”.
In essence, you can’t define me as an animal without violating a fundamental principle of the Jewish and Christian faiths. If you try to do so, I have a freedom of religion defense to stop you.
As I’ve described elsewhere, I believe this Man Or Other Animals (MOOA) defense is so politically explosive, that the government had no choice but to drop the case.
In fact, I can’t prove that my MOOA defense was as explosive as I believe. I can’t prove why the Attorney General dropped the case. The Attorney General never offered an explanation. They just dropped the case. I infer that the AG dropped the case because of my MOOA defense and I’ve argued that point off and on for the past eight years.
Recently, a couple of the readers on this blog have argued persistently that my MOOA defense is fundamentally flawed and wrong. Foremost among these critics is someone who goes by the name of “Jetlag”. He’s argued that while man was made in God’s image as per Genesis 1:26-28, that status was lost when Adam and Eve committed the original sin, and remains lost to this day. Jetlag bases his conclusions primarily on his reading of Genesis 9:6 which he claims that use of the word “was” (past tense) in relation to the “man made in God’s image” status proves that while man “was” (past tense) made in God’s image, that status is “past tense” and no longer available to man.
If Jetlag is right, my freedom of religion/MOOA defense was fundamentally flawed since man is no longer deemed by God to be made in His image and is therefore reduced to the status of a “beast” or “animal”. Thus, although the Texas Attorney General did drop the case against us in A.D. 2007, he shouldn’t have done so since my defense was flawed. If Jetlag is right, and if the AG had continued to prosecute the case, I might be in debt to the State of Texas for something like $20 million.
As you can see, I have a vested interest in denying Jetlag’s argument.
What follow are:
1) Excerpts from one of Jetlag’s email dated “February 20, 2014 at 5:59 PM” wherein Jetlag (who describes himself as one of several Bible “students who aren’t deceived by erroneous arguments”) attempts to explain the fallacies in my MOOA defense and argument; and,
2) My “voluminous” replies and defense against to Jetlag’s reading of the Bible.
Jetlag begins (his comments are indented and in quotes; my responses are not):
“@Adask “You have commented in volume, as usual,”
Yes, I tend to be long-winded and verbose. (And if you think my last comment was overly “voluminous,” wait’ll you see this one.)
I wish I could write more concisely. I sometimes pray to be able to write more concisely. But that prayer has, so far, been unanswered.
But there’s something to be said for writing long articles and extensive comments: the more I write, the more I learn. In the end, I don’t write merely to “teach” others. I also and primarily write to “teach” myself. Writing causes me to pause, to think and to perceive things that I might’ve missed if I’d written more concisely. I like to learn and since writing is the basis for most of my education, I like to writ . . . a lot.
More, when I write in adversity against something I believe to be intrinsically dead, I write somewhat like an undertaker. I try to build the coffin very carefully, place the dead thing in that coffin, and then fasten the lid with a multitude of nails. If the thing I thereby “bury” wishes to escape coffin I’ve created, it better be very effing powerful to escape the verbal coffin I’ve crafted. Insofar as I bury something, I hope to see that it stays buried.
Nothing personal. That’s just me. I tend to overdo. But in that tendency I’ve sharpened my ability to craft a pretty good coffin. I won’t say that my coffins are impossible to escape, but the internee had better be a modern Houdini to do so.
Jetlag continues:
“but the only parts of interest to me are those that address the Biblical basis of your argument. As far as I’m concerned, you can have whatever “religious” or “political” opinions you fancy. My comments on this topic are, at present, only those of a student of the Bible.”
Good to know. So, you (the magnificent “student of the Bible”) are going to let me have my own opinions on religion and politics? Well, golly, thanks a lot, your highness! (Wait’ll I tell mom!)
But, if you’ll only consider those parts of my comments that are of interest to you, isn’t that kinda egotistical?
While I recognize your right to respond only to whichever parts of my comments you choose, couldn’t your blanket rejection of my “religious or political opinions” also be a means by which you could control the debate so as to simply ignore some of my stronger arguments and evidence? Should we believe that you’re so smart that you can unilaterally reject my “religious and political opinions”? Or should we believe that you’re you so weak that you’re afraid to address them?
If you’re going to separate the Bible from “religious” and “political” opinions that I (and perhaps others) advance, isn’t that a little short-sighted? I mean, if we all separated the Bible from “religion” and “politics,” what relevance would the Bible have to today’s life? We might argue forever about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, and never once actually dance the Boogaloo.
• Being a “student [extraordinaire?] of the Bible,” you’d probably know better than me, but didn’t the Messiah say something about “by their fruits ye shall know them”?
I believe he did, and I understand that statement to mean that when you’re faced with a difficult choice as to what to believe about a man (is he good or bad?) and there seems to be roughly equal evidence both for and against, the solution is to judge the man, not by what he says, but by what he’s done (his conduct, and the consequences of that conduct, his “fruits). Thus, it seems “biblical” (at least to me) that my religious and political opinions be considered as evidence of whether your argument that man is no longer “made in God’s image” is right or wrong.
I.e., your “biblical arguments” do not exist in an intellectual vacuum as a kind of mathematical abstraction. If you’re argument (that we are all “beasts”) is correct, your argument is conducive to abortion, serial killing, mass murder, genocide and even nuclear war. If we’re all just animals, why not kill anyone who gets in our way. The “fruits” of your argument is death.
On the other hand, my argument (that mankind is made in God’s image and therefore not “beasts” and not subject to being lawfully slaughtered like animals) is opposed to abortion, serial killing, mass murder, genocide and nuclear war. The “fruits” of my argument are life. However, evidence of that “life” will only be found in an examination of current “religious” and “political” realities.
So it seem surprising to me, and even a little unfair, that you’d seemingly refuse to consider my religious and political “opinions” wherein we might find evidence of the “fruits” of your and my conflicting beliefs.
Jetlag starts this next excerpt by quoting me:
“@Adask > ‘When your various “right arguments properly presented as Biblical” refute the idea that man is made in God’s image, then you also appear to refute the idea at Genesis 9:6 (immediately after the Great Flood) that the reason you can’t shed man’s blood (including murder) is that man is made in God’s image.’
Jetlag responds to my previous quote as follows:
“You [Adask] still don’t appear to have read Genesis 9:6, despite the fact that your misrepresentation of this verse has been pointed out multiple times.
“This verse does not say man “is” created in God’s image. It says man “was” created (or the grammatical equivalent) in God’s image.”
“The fact that man WAS created in God’s image is not in dispute here.”
It may be that I haven’t read whichever version of the Bible Jetlag relies on, but I have read the King James and the New King James versions which both report Genesis 9:6 as:
“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”
Oddly, neither my King James and New King James version of Genesis 9:6 includes the word “was” which Jetlag has previously and repeatedly quoted as being present in that verse.
Hmph. It is a puzzlement. Could it be that the word “was” is present in some other version of the Bible but not the KJV? Could it be that Jetlag’s argument (that man “was” once made in God’s image, but is no longer) is based on some alternative version of the Bible?
If so, would you mind telling us what’s the preferred version of Bible for you and your self-described “students of the Bible who are not persuaded by wrong arguments erroneously presented as Biblical”? Which version of Bible do you regard as more authoritative than the King James Version? Do tell. Because it appears from reading the KJV, that the word “was” is a phantom—it does not actually exist in Genesis 9:6.
Therefore, is it possible that while you accuse me of repeatedly “misrepresenting” the meaning of Genesis 9:6 (and thereby impugn my motives and my character), the real problem has been that you have mis-read Genesis 9:6 and repeatedly misquoted the presence of the phantom word “was”—even though it wasn’t there?
Is that what we’ve been arguing about for the past week—your failure to properly read and honestly quote Genesis 9:6? If so, was your allegation that the word “was” was present done by mistake or by intent? Are you merely incompetent, or are you malicious?
Oh, wait–again! In your most recent response, you wrote,
“This verse does not say man “is” created in God’s image. It says man “was” created (or the grammatical equivalent) in God’s image.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears that although you’re still sticking to the use of “was” in quotes, you’re now qualifying that quote with “or the grammatical equivalent”. Does that additional, qualifying phrase imply that you’ve recently re-read Genesis 9:6 and discovered that the word “was” (which appears to be the cornerstone for your argument that man is no longer made in God’s image) is not expressly present?
If so, does this mean that, rather than admit you’ve screwed up big time and wasted a lot of other people’s time with your silly-ass argument, your ego has prompted you to try to bluff your way out of this argument by now implicitly claiming that (while Genesis 9:6 doesn’t actually contain the word “was”) it nevertheless includes the “grammatical equivalent” of “was”?
Is that what you’re trying to say, Jetlag?
And I want to emphasize that my comments surrounding this “grammatical equivalent” issue are not my “religious” or “political” opinions. These comments are about you, in general, and your ego in particular.
I want to know, Bible student, if your version of the Bible actually includes the word “was” in Genesis 9:6. If not, inquiring minds want to know if you have balls enough to admit that you’ve screwed up in the fundamental premise of your argument against MOOA. Inquiring minds want to know if your ego will drive you to deny, deny, deny, that your argument was ever flawed. Inquiring minds want to know if you have any substance or if you’re just a pile of superficial style.
• Before you answer, and given your fondness and aptitude for “grammatical equivalence,” let’s read Genesis 9:6 one more time, and I’ll give you my “grammatical equivalence” for its meaning:
“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”
I think it’s apparent that the the word “for” was used in the sense of “because”. If so, God implicitly said in Genesis 9:6 that:
1) At least at some time in the history of the world, anyone who assaulted or killed another man, could lawfully suffer a similar injury or death by the hands of other men as a punishment; and,
2) The reason that a man could be punished for having shed another man’s blood was that man was made in God’s image. It is an offense against God to shed the blood of a man made in God’s image without cause.
Jetlag argues that while mankind “was” once made in God’s image, that image has been lost and is no longer present to this day. Jetlag originally based his argument on the presence of the phantom word “was” in Genesis 9:6 (which isn’t actually present in the King James Version). Jetlag argued that the word “was” was past tense and therefore Genesis 9:6 only applied at some previous time, before Adam committed the Original Sin—but not 1,600 years later at the time of Noah and Genesis 9:6 and certainly not not today.
But, given Jetlag’s fascination with things “grammatical” and reliance on the past tense found in the (missing) word “was,” I’m surprised that he missed the presence of the word “shall” (future tense) in Genesis 9:6 and its future implications.
Let’s read Genesis 9:6 again:
“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”
Thus, my “grammatical equivalent” to Genesis 9:6 is “Whoever sheddeth the blood of a man made in God’s image in the future, shall (in the future) also suffer a similar punishment.” My “grammatical equivalent” of Genesis 9:6 indicates that, at least from the time of Noah’s exit from the Ark and onward to today, man may not be lawfully killed because all men are still (or have again become) “made in God’s image”.
If my reading is correct, I’m still entitled to claim to be made in God’s image. More, I’m entitled to advance a valid freedom of religion claim that I’m not subject to laws that apply only to “animals”.
If my reading of the future application of Genesis 9:6 is correct, Jetlag’s “past tense” argument against MOOA is false.
But Jetlag remains undeterred. He quotes me on the 6th Commandment in the KJV (“Thou shalt not kill”) and then explains the reason for that Commandment:
“@Adask > “If it’s no longer true that we’re made in God’s image, then what’s the basis for the biblical commandment against killing?”
“The Biblical basis against murder is that God has command against it. Also, God and man have certain covenantal and other relationships between them, including the God-given right to life.”
Uh-huhhh . . . vewy intewesting.
Jetlag, in your first sentence, you appear to say that there’s no actual “reason” for “Thou shalt not kill”—it’s “jus’ cuz” God says so, right?
In other words, God just arbitrarily declared “Thou shalt not kill,” and if He has a reason for that Commandment, He didn’t bother to explain it. (Maybe He flipped a coin—whaddaya think? Heads; thou shalt kill? Tails, thou shalt not kill?)
And even if He has a reason and no one knows what it is, you (oh, Bible student extraordinaire; “B.S.E.”) understand for sure that it’s absolutely, positively not because man is made in God’s image as per Genesis 1:26-28 and 9:6. And you know this for sure because Genesis 9:6 includes the word “was”—or, if not, Genesis 9:6 nevertheless includes the “grammatical equivalent” of “was”.
My question to you is this: Is it a rule of construction in the Bible that any use of the word “was” (or the “grammatical equivalent” thereof) is sufficient to render a sentence or verse using “was” (or the “grammatical equivalent,” of course) as no longer authoritative? Do you understand what I’m asking? Does “was” (or its “grammatical equivalent”) always condemn a verse onto the ash heap of history—or does “was” (even when it’s a phantom and not actually present) only negate the meaning of Genesis 9:6?
You may think I’m just straining at gnats. However, my questions about the proper use of the word “was” are important because, according to a search on one of my computerized Bible programs, the word “was” actually appears a total of 4,531 times in 3,638 Bible verses. (God only knows how many verses only include the phantom “was” but do include the “grammatical equivalent” thereof.). If all those Bible verses that actually include “was” have been thereby effectively nullified, that’ll reduce the effective size of the Bible quite a lot, y’ know?
See, according to one source, there are over 54,000 verses in the Bible. So if 3,638 Bible verses are nullified by the actual use of the word “was” and some unknown number of other verses are nullified by the “grammatical equivalent” of “was,” then it could be that 10% of the modern Bible verses are mere historical curiosities and no longer of any force or effect. You can see why I’m so concerned about the Bible’s rules of construction for use of the word “was”. All this time I’ve been reading the Bible, and it may be that 10% (maybe more!) is of no force or effect. So I gotta have an answer from a Bible Student Extraordinaire, like you, Jetlag.
Lemme give you an example of another Bible verse that actually uses the word “was”:
Genesis 1:3 reads, “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.”
So, if the Bible’s rules of construction for use of the word “was” are the same for all such uses, then I presume that you and your fellow B.S.E.s understand that while there was light, back at the time of Creation—today, because Genesis 1:3 uses the word “was” but not “is”, there “is” no light today, right?
Therefore, just as use of the phantom word “was” (or its “grammatical equivalent”) in Genesis 9:6 proves that man is no longer made in God’s image, I presume that use of the word “was” in Genesis 1:3 also proves that there is no longer any “light”—right?
If so, I’m confused because (I know you’ll think me odd) I actually believe I still see “light”. But, if I understand you correctly, oh grand-high B.S.E., there is no light because the Bible said “was” in Genesis 1:3, and therefore my notions of “light” are all in my mind—a kind of delusion, right?
So, if you could help me to “see” that there really isn’t any light at this time, then maybe I could also learn to walk around in the eternal darkness like you and your fellows B.S.E.s—see?
• Of course, if there is light, even today, how do you, Jetlag, explain that use of the word “was” in Genesis 1:3 does not prove the nonexistence of light today, while use of the phantom word “was” (or its “grammatical equivalent”) in Genesis 9:6 does prove the current non-existence of “men made in God’s image”?
I look forward to your explanation of that apparent contradiction. It should be illuminating.
However, I don’t expect an explanation because I don’t think you can explain or even try to explain without digging the hole you’re in even deeper.
And, if this hole you’re digging is not growing deeper, it may still be growing wider.
I.e., when you wrote,
“The Biblical basis against murder is that God has command against it. Also, God and man have certain covenantal and other relationships between them, including the God-given right to life,”
your first sentence seems to have argued that “Thou shalt not kill” was purely an arbitrary command by God which no one can or needs to understand. God said it. No further explanation is necessary. Salute and execute.
But your very next sentence seems to say “No! Wait! ‘Thou shalt not kill” is not merely an arbitrary command, but is also based on “certain covenantal and other relationships” (I just love your use of the word “covenantal”; it’s so . . . so . . . sophisticated) between God and man.
Not being a B.S.E., I lack the intellect and education sufficient to understand how those two sentences aren’t contradictory. It seems to me that the 6th Commandment either is arbitrary or it is not. If that command is arbitrary, there shouldn’t also be a “covenantal relationship” to explain, justify or even authorize “Thou shalt not kill”. If God ordered, “Thou shalt not kill” that order should be supreme and render any additional need for “covenantal relationships” moot.
On the other hand, if the 6th Commandment is based on a “covenantal relationship” between man and God, then it appears that “Thou shalt not kill” is based on reason that God presented in his “covenants” and which man can understand.
If my simplistic reasoning is valid, your two consecutive sentences contradict each other and therefore at least one of them must be false.
But how could that be possible?!!
After all, both sentences were written by you, Jetlag, the Bible Student Extraordinaire (B.S.E.), and we all know that a Bible Student of your Extraordinary capacity could not possibly have made a mistake. But if you did make a mistake, your character and integrity would quickly compel you to confess your error—just as you did with your idiotic argument that men are no longer “made in God’s image” because of the use of phantom word “was” (which isn’t actually even used in the KJV) in Genesis 9:6.
Ohh . . . wait . . . you haven’t yet admitted that error, have you? Perhaps your character and integrity are not as great as I (and perhaps, you) have previously supposed.
In any case, Jetlag, being the Bible Student Extraordinaire, perhaps you’d be kind enough to list these “covenantal and other relationships” that create the authority and reason for “Thou shalt not kill”. And, given that “Thou shalt not kill” was commanded shortly after the Hebrews exited from Egypt, these “covenantal relationships that you refer to must have been entered into some time before the Ten Commandments were issued. That suggests that your “covenantal relationships” must be found in the early part of the book of Exodus or in the previous book of the Bible: Genesis (wherein we find Genesis 1:26-28 and 9:6). I wish you Good hunting!
Also, you referenced our “God-given right to life”. I understand that the “grammatical equivalent” to “God-given right to life” could be found in our “Declaration of Independence”. However, not being a Bible Student Extraordinaire, I haven’t yet found passage anywhere in the Bible (especially that portion of the Bible that precedes the Ten Commandments) where the text refers to our “God-given right to life” (or the “grammatical equivalent” thereof). Can you provide some citation to whichever verses you believe declare such right?
• Next, Jetlag complains that my previous comparison of himself to Adolph Hitler is unfair. See, I’d previously observed that the legal foundation for killing Jews in Nazi concentration camps during WWII was Hitler’s A.D. 1935 Nuremberg Laws that declared the Jews to be “untermenschen” (sub-humans or “animals”). As Jews who were legally reduced to the status of animals, the Jews could be freely slaughtered no more moral or legal liability than would attach if you slaughtered a cow or a lamb. Other Germans retained their status as men who were superior to animals and could not be freely slaughtered.
As I understand Jetlag’s argument:
1) God’s declaration at Genesis 1:26-28 that man is made in God’s image and given dominion over the other creatures (“animals”) which are not made in God’s image was terminated by original sin; and therefore
2) the prohibition on killing men because they’re made in God’s image (Genesis 9:6) is also terminated and of no force or effect today.
Jetlag’s argument is similar to Hitler’s A.D. 1935 Nuremberg Laws in that both allow some or all people to be considered as “animals” which are therefore suitable for being killed without legal or moral consequence.
As I’ve previously pointed out, the Messiah at one point advised that when it’s difficult to discern whether a man or idea was good, “by their fruits ye shall know them”. The “fruits” (consequences) of my argument that men are still “made in God’s image” are longer life and less murder.
The fruits” (consequences) of Jetlag’s argument that men are no longer made in God’s image but are instead reduced to the status of “beasts” are shorter life, more murder, serial killing, mass murder, abortion, genocide and nuclear war. Thus, Jetlag’s analysis of the meaning of the word “was” in Genesis 9:6 (or the “grammatical equivalent” thereof) seem to have a lot in common with Hitler’s philosophy.
Jetlag objects to that comparison by first quoting me, and then providing his response:
“@Adask > “Please share your enormous biblical wisdom (the same once advocated by Adolph Hitler) with me and rest of the readers of this blog.”
“So now you’re playing the Hitler card. Like I said, this topic is not about your politics or religion (or the overlap of the two), as far as I’m concerned. As a student of the Bible, this is only about what scripture does and does not say.
There I go again: “playing the Hitler card”. How unfair of me. You’d think I was darn Jew, always whining about Hitler. I guess I should get over it, right?
Just because Jetlag’s interpretation of the Bible is conducive to the same sort of genocide perpetrated by Adoph Hitler, it’s unreasonable and unfair of me to point that out.
Jetlag apparently believes that he should be allowed to control what topics and subject will be considered on this blog. Well, that’s a nice, egotistical theory, Jetlag, but it don’t fly here.
This is my blog and if the topics on this blog are going to be controlled by anyone, they’ll be controlled by me. And no one, not even a B.S.E., is going to tell me what I can or can’t write about on this blog.
You, Jetlag, get to control the topics on your blog—but not on mine. Which, incidentally, brings up another question: Where is your blog, Jetlag? I’ve published nearly 1,400 articles on this blog, so I assume that (smart as you are, B.S.E.) you may have published even more on your blog. So, why don’t you tell us where we can find your blog and read all of the multitude of brilliant articles you’ve written?
• In fact, your attempt to confine this “topic” to “only about what scripture does and does not say” seems self-serving and defensive. I think you have brains enough to see that your interpretation of the significance of the word “was” in Genesis 9:6 is stupid. That stupidity is particularly apparent given that: 1) the word “was” (on which you base your argument) doesn’t even appear in the King James Version of Genesis 9:6; and 2) the consequences of your interpretation of Genesis 9:6 include increased likelihood murder, mass killings, abortion and genocide. If you’re right, we’re worshipping a god who encourages murder.
Given that the KJV of Genesis 9:6 doesn’t include the word “was”—but does include the word “shall”—your wish to restrict the topic to “only about what scripture does and does not say” seems a little hypocritical. I mean, my KJV of Genesis 9:6 does not include or “say” the word “was,” so how is it, oh Brilliant Bible Student, that you’re basing your argument on a phantom word that the KJV Bible does not “say” at Genesis 9:6?
• One other point about Hitler’s law declaring the Jews to be “untermenschen”: Why was such law necessary? Why didn’t the Nazis simply round up the Jews and kill them?
If it were true (as Jetlag insists) that all men are still beasts/animals under God’s law, why didn’t Hitler know and understand that principle? The fact that Hitler felt obligated to pass a law that declared the Jews to be animals before he initiated the “final solution” implies that Hitler and the German people did not regard all men as “beasts”. If they had, no special law would’ve been necessary to authorize the killing of Jews.
Why the Nazis believed that men were different from animals is not known to me. Exactly why the Nazis believed that declaring Jews to be animals would warrant the Jews deaths is not known to me. But it’s certainly possible and virtually certain that the Nazis understood that Genesis 9:6 and the 6th Commandment protected all men from arbitrary murder—and therefore passed a law that stripped the Jews of their status as “men”. I the status of untermenschen/animals, the Jews (including even children) could be arbitrarily and legally exterminated.
Thus, we see implicit evidence that even the Nazis’ acknowledged that man was not an animal and therefore could not be murdered without some sort of legal justification.
Jetlag goes Hitler one better by implicitly arguing that no such legal justification is required since all of us are already “beasts”.
• Jetlag continued:
“If your interest in Christian scripture is genuine, you [Adask] might finally answer the following question. For clarity, I post it again, after answering your questions about the question:
“1 Corinthians 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
“shall” = future tense
“If Paul and the Corinthians had to wait until after death to acquire the image of God, on what scriptural basis is it credible that Alfred Adask would not have to wait?”
“If [Adask’s] interest in Christian scripture is genuine”? Again, you impugn my motives, character, etc. That’s why I’m going to drive this “topic” into the ground. You’re a smug, arrogant pseudo-intellectual, Jetlag. You use language to bamboozle rather than commune. You’ve less interested in finding truth than in winning (even false) arguments. You remind me of Psalm 2:1-4 which reads,
“Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.”
You also make me “laugh,” Jetlag, and I regard you with “derision”. You are a dead thing, suitable for one of my “coffins”.
As for your questions that you’ve allegedly posted repeatedly, first, I don’t recall having seen that question before, but I don’t have time to read all of the comments so I may have missed it. But here it is, posed again “for clarity”:
“1 Corinthians 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
“shall” = future tense
“If Paul and the Corinthians had to wait until after death to acquire the image of God, on what scriptural basis is it credible that Alfred Adask would not have to wait?”
Well, before I can answer your question, we need even a little more “clarity” from you. What evidence do you have (other than your own presumption?) that the phrases “image of the heavenly” and “image of God” are synonymous?
See, my computerized versions of the Bible include a Strong’s Concordance which defines the word “God” as used in the “image of God” at both Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 9:6 as:
“H430
אלהים
‘ĕlôhîym
el-o-heem’
“Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: – angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.”
But that same version of Strong’s defines the word “heavenly” in the phrase “image of the heavenly” in 1 Chronicles 15:49 as:
G2032
ἐπουράνιος
epouranios
ep-oo-ran’-ee-os
From G1909 and G3772; above the sky: – celestial, (in) heaven (-ly), high.
Do you see the problem, oh Bible Student Extraordinaire who seeks to restrict this topic to “only about what scripture does and does not say”?
Apparently you don’t want to be bound by your own rules.
As used in the verses at issue, “God” and “heavenly” are two different words.
The definition for “God” (in reference to the image of “God” in Genesis 1:26-28 and Genesis 9:6) doesn’t appear to be synonymous with the word “heavenly” (in “image of the heavenly” in 1 Chronicles 15:49). So, unless this is another instance of “grammatical equivalency,” how can your question make much sense? How can I explain your seemingly nonsensical question?
Given that the two definitions appear different, why couldn’t I have the “image of God” in this life and later acquire the “image of the heavenly” in the next life?
(Incidentally, who gets to decide what the “grammatical equivalence” of a word, phrase or verse is? You?)
More, “If your interest in Christian scripture is genuine, you, Jetlag, might . . . answer the following question”: How is it that a Bible Student Extraordinaire like yourself has not only presumed, but even argued repeatedly (you claim to have asked the underlying question more than once) that the phrase “image of God” and “image of the heavenly,” are synonymous?
As you may know, I’m just a dumb construction worker. But, even to an intellect as ordinary as mine, presuming the words “God” and “heavenly” to be synonymous when they are clearly not, seems like a big mistake for anyone whose “interest in Christian scripture is genuine”—especially, a Bible Student Extraordinaire like yourself.
How do you explain that screw-up, smart guy?
Again, I’m reminded of the references in Psalm 2:4 to laughter and derision. I think I’m going to buy you a big red rubber nose, and maybe some floppy shoes, and you can wear them whenever you read the Bible and comment on this blog. They might remind you of the need for a dash of humility even among B.S.E.s.
• Jetlag persists (but few are more persistent than me):
“Also, how do you explain the following statements by Christ that he, specifically, was the image of God in his day?
“John 12:45 The one who looks at me is seeing the one who sent me.
“John 14:9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?”
I don’t claim to know what the explanation is. I don’t even claim to see why any explanation is required since, to my simple mind, the explanation seems fairly obvious:
1) God made man in His image;
2) The Messiah was sometimes referred to in the New Testament as the “Son of Man”;
3) It’s reasonable to conclude that being the “Son of Man,” the Messiah was (like mankind) was made in the “image of God”.
4) It’s also reasonable to suppose that since all men are made in God’s image, but virtually all men have different faces, that the Messiah, being the only begotten Son of God, might bear a more accurate “image of God” than you or I do. You and I look like men but we don’t look like twins. I look more like my earthly father and you may look more your earthly father. If you could see the Messiah, you might also see a much stronger resemblance to his Father and to the “image of God”.
Undeterred by simple observation, truth or reason, Jetlag continues:
“You still don’t appear to have read Genesis 9:6, despite the fact that your misrepresentation of this verse has been pointed out multiple times. This verse does not say man “is” created in God’s image. It says man “was” created (or the grammatical equivalent) in God’s image. The fact that man WAS created in God’s image is not in dispute here.”
I find it hilarious to read that you (Jetlag) accuse me of not having properly read Genesis 9:6 and having thereby failed to see that the word “is” is missing, while you have clearly not read Genesis 9:6 since you’ve found the phantom word “was” and missed the expressly-present word “shall”. And, the phantom word “was” is the foundation for your argument against the validity of MOOA.
You, Jetlag, are undeniably guilty of the very same “crime” that you’ve mistakenly charged against me: failing to have read the Bible and then misrepresenting the meaning of the verse in question.
What irony, hmm? The man who accused me of not having read Genesis 9:6 has, himself, apparently failed to read Genesis 9:6 Hoisted by his own petard, hmm?
Jetlag’s argument that man is no longer made in God’s image is based on claims that:
1) use of the phantom word “was” (past tense) (which isn’t really used in Genesis 9:6); and,
2) the absence of the word “is” from that verse; are,
3) absolute proof that
4) man is no longer made in God’s image;
5) man is still deemed a “beast” by God;
6) Government’s use of the phrase “man or other animals” in its definitions of “food,” “drug” and medical “devices” is harmless or at least beyond any freedom of religion objection; and,
7) my “Man Or Other Animals” (MOOA)/freedom-of-religion defense was irrational and of no force and effect and therefore inherently false.
But, in fact, in the KJV of Genesis 9:6:
1) The phantom word “was” (past tense) does not appear and only might be implied;
2) The word “is” (present tense) does not appear; but,
3) The word “shall” (future tense) does absolutely, positively appear.
4) The express word “shall” (future tense) trumps the absence of “is” (present tense) and would trump the meaning of the phantom word “was” (past tense) if “was” had actually been included in the KJV of Genesis 9:6. Therefore,
5) Jetlag’s argument about the current application of MOOA has failed.
Utterly.
Ridiculously.
Even comically.
His argument is based on the presence of a word that doesn’t appear in at least ten versions of the Bible. If I were a Bible Student Extraordinaire and I made that sort of argument and persisted in doing so, I’d be red if that mistake were exposed.
I wonder if Jetlag has the capacity to blush.
• Read it on more time, B.S.E.:
“Gen 9:6: Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”
Incidentally, “Sheddeth” appears to be future tense. (If they’d meant past tense, I think they’d have written “hath sheddeth”.)
But “shall” is undeniably future tense. More, there’s no reason to suppose that “future” didn’t start for another 3,500 years into the future. Therefore, from Genesis 9:6 onward: 1) men were made in God’s image; and therefore, 2) anyone who spilled man’s blood shall (future tense) also see his own blood spilled.
More, as it turns out, Jetlag’s original argument was primarily based on the premise that the word “was” (past tense) appeared in Genesis 9:6. In fact, Jetlag’s premise is false.
The word “was” is not even present in the King James Version of Genesis 9:6. In fact, my computer Bible study program has ten versions of the Bible (ASV, CEV, ESV, GNB, GW, KJV, KJVR, LITV, MKJV and RV) and not one of those ten presents a version of Genesis 9:6 that includes the use of the word “was”. Nine of those ten versions include the word “shall” and the one remaining version uses the word “will”.
Jetlag’s argument against MOOA is false. Not a little bit false, not arguably false, but absolutely false.
More, given that the word “was” (on which Jetlag based his argument) doesn’t even appear in ten versions of the Bible, Jetlag’s argument is not only false, but so blatantly and obviously false that it’s hard to know if Jetlag is merely incompetent, too egotistical to admit when he makes a mistake, or malicious insofar as he persists in asserting an argument based on a word that he should know isn’t actually present in Genesis 9:6.
Jetlag undoubtedly knows more than most about the “letter” of law in the Bible, but he appears to have little or no appreciation of the spirit of the Bible.
So far as I know, the God of the Bible is the God of truth. Truth is a vital concern to our Father YHWH ha Elohiym.
Apparently, truth may not be a vital concern for Jetlag.