Throughout Genesis chapter 1 to chapter 2 v 4 the term "God "is used. From Chapter 2 v 4 untill chapter 4 the term "Lord God "is used. I was wondering therefore if the title "God "refers to a different being than the term "Lord God" ? Or what possible explanation there could be to start using the term "Lord God" as opposed to "God"?
Genesis chapters 1-4 ?
by cluless 9 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
abbagail
Hi cluless... You are on the right track and are asking the right questions! ;-)
"God" in Genesis 1 thru 2:4 is the title for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together in their "composite-nesss" as they are taking part together in creation of the earth. "God" as in a composite God, three persons in One God, working in unity together. Together they are "nameless," so to speak. But in Genesis 2, one of them steps forward out of the INvisible realm and into the VISIBLE realm to not only create man but to begin a personal two-way communication/relationship with him (later her/them, etc.) Not only did He talk with them but he daily walked with them in the garden in the cool of the day ("breezy" part of the day per WT, who always said that meant it was in the late afternoon; yet many many other Christians say that the "cool" part of the day is early morning. ;-)
Anyway, This ONE who came forward into the Visible realm revealed His name (Lord God, or YHWH-God) and he's the only one of the three whose name is ever revealed in all of scripture. We also know him as The Word (Communicator) who was from the beginning and who was not only "with God" but also Himself was "God" (as in part of the Godhead). John 1.1. He is the "IMAGE of the INvisible God," like Him in every way (Col. 1:15).
I'm too sleepy to explain it very well right now, but here's one article http://www.havefaith.org/new_page_6a.htm , which is actually the transcript from a daily Bible study program which touched on this subject: http://www.lesfeldick.org/ which I understand that program is also available in Europe via satellite: http://www.lesfeldick.org/les-tv.html . It's a great Bible study.
And here's an article discussing this very thing you described in Gen.1-2:4: The title of the article is: JEHOVAH-JESUS: http://siefkerbiblestudies.com/jehovah_jesus.htm
And here's a recent thread here at JWD on the subject where I posted about the same info but with a wee-bit more clarity: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/169136/3134246/post.ashx#3134246.
And don't miss this graphic/chart by another person on the above same forum - Excellent: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_dTSEBZ7tOe0/SKaeSl1fouI/AAAAAAAAARU/-ivAk8BAnwM/s1600-h/CetnarWheel.JPG
Here's another list from another source: http://www.carm.org/doctrine/Jehovah_is_Jesus.htm
And lastly, another quick google showed this comment from a Christian Forum discussion:
"God rested on the seventh day (Gen. 2:1-3), so we see the "Lord God" (Christ) coming onto the scene on the 'seventh day' (Gen. 2:4 = Lord of the Sabbath) to then form Adam." http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7287308
------------
Another thought is to get any book re: The NAMES of GOD... there are several out there, but here's one I had and liked:
http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qwork=7441190&matches=21&author=Arthur%2C+Kay&browse=1&cm_sp=works*listing*cover .
heehee, google showed this from Rose Christian Publishers: Free 10-Names of God eChart: http://www.rose-publishing.com/client/client_pages/premiums/namesofgod_landing.cfm?gclid=CMjVm5ub9ZcCFQGbnAodOBbSDQ
Names and Titles of God: http://www.jesuswalk.com/ebooks/pu_names-god_toc.htm
etc. etc. Lots of info out there as I'm sure you know. It just takes some time to narrow down and filter through...
------------
HYH! -
hamilcarr
Lord God is the English rendition of the Tetragrammaton.
God is the translation of the Hebrew Elohim.
According to the Documentary Hypothesis, the Genesis account consists of two originally independent sources, the Elohist
and,the Jahwist and the Priestly source, referring to the two divine names used by the authors (Elohim used by priestly source, too).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis
Edited after Leolaia's post.
-
cluless
Thankuou for your research and comments "Abbigail & Hamilcarr"
-
Leolaia
cluless....You've noticed by yourself one of the key pieces of evidence that the creation narrative in ch. 1 (technically up to 2:4a) is independent and from a different hand than ch. 2-3. What we have in these chapters is two separate accounts of creation, described in rather different ways. Notice that the creation of man is related twice in ch. 1 and 2, and in the second the creation of man precedes the creation of plants and shrubs (2:5-6) and the animals and birds (2:19). The animals are created out of the ground just as man was created out of the ground -- these are analogous acts of creation. It is the same way with the trees and plants, they were formed out of the ground (2:9). In ch. 1, man is created only after plants and animals and flying creatures are created.
The Pentateuch is generally thought to be a composite of different sources that were compiled together by an editor (possibly Ezra, after the Babylonian exile). The creation account in ch. 1 comes from a Priestly source (= P) that uses a style very similar to that in Ezekiel and comes from a time probably within the lifetime of the prophet Ezekiel (i.e. during the exile). The other account in ch. 2-3 comes from a very different source, the Yahwist source (= J), so-called because it uses the tetragrammaton as a name for God throughout the entire patriarchical history. This style is much closer to the older epic style used in 1-2 Samuel or in the Elijah-Elisha cycle in 1-2 Kings. In fact, the Hebrew itself is quite different -- coming from a different stage in the history of the Hebrew language from several centuries earlier (just as the English of the 1750s is a little bit different from that used today, although not as different as the Elizabethan English of the early 1600s). It isn't just the use of the yhwh and 'lhym alone as titles for God that distinguish these two sources (and from other sources included in the Pentateuch). The pattern in the usage of these names across the texts of the Pentateuch co-occurs with a whole host of other linguistic, stylistic, theological, and other features that show the same pattern of occurrence across these texts. This is far more clear in the original Hebrew than in English translation. The exact demarcation of these sources is not always clear because it is possible for a verse to not include any of these features and the final editing of the sources together may have blurred the borders between sources at places (e.g. yhwh 'lhym in ch. 2-3 (= J) accommodates the 'lhym in ch. 1 which comes from P to the usual yhwh of J, where it occurs alone in ch. 4, such that yhwh 'lyhm transitions between the two expressions), and exactly how they were compiled together is an everlasting subject for debate, but what is clear is that there is a striking patterning of features that cluster together in some texts but not in others that usually indicates the presence of different hands in a single text.
P is quite distinctive and stands out rather clearly in the Pentateuch. It has a rather dry preference for repetitive formulae and numerical detail, it avoids almost entirely metaphors, poetic expressions, dramatic elements, and wordplay, it has a special concern for ritualistic priestly aspects of the Law (such as purity and the distinction between clean and unclean), it has a more abstract concept of God, and it has its own distinctive vocabulary. In contrast, J is filled with vivid poetic and dramatic expressions (in an epic style), it frequently indulges in wordplay, it has no concern for priestly aspects of the Law, it shows little concern for numerical and chronological data, and it has its own distinctive language. In the creation account of P, we have a very repetitive and formulaic recounting of the acts of creation in a numerical scheme, 'lhym alone is used as a name for God, there is a ritualistic concern for the sabbath, and the text is filled with distinctive P terms like "kind" (cf. other P texts in Genesis 6:20, 7:14, Leviticus 11:14, 15, 16, 19; cf. Ezekiel 47:10), "to swarm" (cf. other P texts in Exodus 7:28, Leviticus 11:29, 41-43, 46; cf. Ezekiel 47:9), "to be fruitful and multiply" (cf. other P texts in Genesis 8:17, 9:1, 7, 17:20, 28:3, Exodus 1:7, Leviticus 26:9; cf. Ezekiel 36:11), "for food" (cf. other P texts in Genesis 6:21, 9:3, Exodus 16:15, Leviticus 11:39; cf. Ezekiel 15:4, 6, 21:37, 23:37, etc.), etc. The genealogies in ch. 5 are also from P and shows the same kind of formulaic scheme (whereas the Cainite and the partial Sethite genealogies of J in ch. 4 and 5:29 show no numerical or chronological data, instead they aim to explain via wordplay the meaning of the names or offer some biographical detail). The creation account in ch. 2-3 however is from J and shows lots of picturesque detail, tons and tons of wordplay in the Hebrew, a more anthropomorphic concept of God (cf. other examples in J texts in Genesis 6:6-7, 11:5, 7, 18:21, Exodus 3:8, 4:14, 4:24, 14:25, 32:14, etc.), very little indication of time or chronology as in P, and it has its own vocabulary shared with other J texts (e.g. trm "before" in Genesis 2:5, cf. 19:4, 24:15, 45, etc., `tsb "sorrow" in Genesis 3:16-17, cf. 5:29, 6:6, 45:5, etc., hp`m "at once" in Genesis 2:23, cf. 18:32, 29:34-35, 30:20, etc.).
-
jaguarbass
In the begining there were people from space. They were homo sapien sapiens. They looked and acted very much like us.
These are the Gods of the bible. This is why the gods are refered to in plural.
The trinity is a curve ball to keep you asleep and in a trance.
When they originally came to earth they had to do all the work and they didnt like that just like we dont like it.
So they made us, genetically enginered in their image.
Originally they made us, too smart, too much like them to be any good as slaves or workers, so they destroyed us, the flood story.
Then they came out with a new dumbed down model, us today,
For the most part sheeplike, unquestioning, workers.
Check out the book. The Gods of Eden for starters.
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Eden-William-Bramley/dp/0380718073
The bible, religion and evolution anything man has told us doesnt make sense.
Read this and you will see why and start to see the big picture.
It gives you a proper understanding of the bible and genesis and Ezekiel and Revelation.
And whrere man came from.
-
Number1Anarchist
I agree with Jaguarbass we were a genetic experiment gone wrong from another planet by the Gods and they tried to extinguish us on this other planet but 1 God had pitty on us while the other Gods were set out to kill us.The 1 God seeded us on other planets and the other Gods are searching all the planets to kill us because we are like cockroaches and hard to kill. We are a horrible experiment gone wrong. We only have a short time on this earth until the other Gods find us and kill us all. It's all there in the bible you just have to read it. Build your spaceship before the Other Gods arrive, flee to another planet before it's to late!
-
JosephMalik
You've noticed by yourself one of the key pieces of evidence that the creation narrative in ch. 1 (technically up to 2:4a) is independent and from a different hand than ch. 2-3. What we have in these chapters is two separate accounts of creation, described in rather different ways. Notice that the creation of man is related twice in ch. 1 and 2, and in the second the creation of man precedes the creation of plants and shrubs (2:5-6) and the animals and birds (2:19). The animals are created out of the ground just as man was created out of the ground -- these are analogous acts of creation. It is the same way with the trees and plants, they were formed out of the ground (2:9). In ch. 1, man is created only after plants and animals and flying creatures are created.
Leolaia,
The assembly of texts written at different times and under different circumstances including oral tradition explains the reason for such variances we see in the texts. Credit for the data however can still be given to the originating source and not the scribe much like Paul’s letters. And sometimes we simply look too hard at a text when making such judgments which I do myself at times. What do I mean by that? Simply that chronology was not an issue in Chapter 2, but generation was (more specifically the generations of man that followed in Genesis). Such things were all part of this generation stated briefly but this introduction simply did not record them in their chronological order. Some facts regarding them was simply recorded. After all Chapter 1 already provided a more chronological account of events and Chapter 2 was more focused on Mans involvement in these generations than creation chronology. 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. This did not necessarily involve the Word. For this reason we should also not confuse this earlier beginning in Genesis with the beginning given in John 1:1 where once again the beginning of Man was John’s theme in his introduction not the beginning of all creation. This is more like the beginnings given in chapter 2's theme in Genesis
Joseph
-
hamsterbait
Leo - can you give us some examples of the "tons and tons of Wordplay" in the account.
THis kind of thing has always delighted me ever since i did a bible reading from Jeremiah,
and discovered what a punner he was.
(of course that raises the question of whether the writer of jeremiah really was an ignorant "pricker of figs" -
a farmworker-
their equivalent of an assembly line worker who put bolt 237 onto join778 as the car passed by.
HB
-
Awakened at Gilead
The book: Who Wrote the Bible cleared it all up for me, putting in laymans terms and greater detail what hamilcarr and Leo are discussing. I recommend it.
