Augustine on the Need to Know Hebrew and Greek

Facepalm.

Straining at gnats and swallowing camels and you really need to find a good bible teaching church.

Not only are you making a mountain out of a molehill you are hanging your salvation on your misunderstanding of a simple gramatical contstruct.

Take Gen 1:2 up with the author. Was is acceptable according to the grammar.

Talk to me again when you have a basic understanding of grammar.

And His name is not HEAVENLY FATHER, it is GOD. Your use of ‘Heavenly Father’ and a proper name and that God organized matter rather than created it is DIRECT LDS doctrine. Perhaps you should talk to some of the LDS on here and meet with the missionaries.

Something that goes from not being to "formless and void" being became the latter as it emerged from the former.

Genesis 1:1 says In the beginning Elohim (little Hebrew lingo) created the heaven and the earth.

Now obviously the Heavenly Father knew what His children would be led to believe regarding Genesis 1:1 AND 2 because He had Isaiah put into words 45:18 For thus saith the LORD That created the heavens; God Himself That formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it NOT in vain (very same specific Hebrew word Moses used in Genesis 1:2 tohu = in vain) He formed it to be inhabited: "I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Genesis 1:2 is the result of the rebellion of that first rebel we are told in detail in Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst (note that tense) weaken the nations! ..... and

Ezekiel 28:12 "Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, 'Thus saith the Lord GOD (Adonai)

Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. -----

15 Thou wast perfect in thy wasy from the day that thou wast created,

till iniquity was found in the....

These holy prophets as Peter calls them are filling in the 'void' that Moses left unpenned in Genesis 1:2

Oh and this is not the only reference to Genesis 1:2 as the Book is filled to what took place during this span of time that resulted in this earth getting shook and flooded to the condition it became uninhabited....

Facepalm.

It reads English, but I have NO clue what it means.

Straining at gnats and swallowing camels and you really need to find a good bible teaching church. Not only are you making a mountain out of a molehill you are hanging your salvation on your misunderstanding of a simple gramatical contstruct. Take Gen 1:2 up with the author. Was is acceptable according to the grammar. Talk to me again when you have a basic understanding of grammar. And His name is not HEAVENLY FATHER, it is GOD. Your use of ‘Heavenly Father’ and a proper name and that God organized matter rather than created it is DIRECT LDS doctrine. Perhaps you should talk to some of the LDS on here and meet with the missionaries.

Excuse me, Matthew 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father Which is in heaven. (this is a legal term as in advocate)

I thought you said you were a learned degreed in the languages... and yet you say 'His' name is GOD, in what language would that be?

Oh I forgot to add that NOWHERE did I say, hint or suggest that the ‘Heavenly Father’ organized matter. Genesis 1:3 onward gets very specific into what was created and formed, after the kataballo Moses says happened in Genesis 1:2 and Paul refers to in Ephesians 1:4....

Of course being the linguist and all I am sure I won’t have to tell you which word in Ephesians 1:4 the translators used in the noun form to convey the verb of casting down/ overthrow.

oy vey...

Remember my little bit about knowledge exceeding ones grasp of understanding...

Just mythoughts wrote:
“What I do know is what Isaiah penned, chapter 45 verse 18 with regard to Genesis 1:2 where the Heavenly Father stated without question He did NOT created this earth in vain, using the very specific Hebrew words as found in Genesis 1:2.”

Actually, there is only one of the words of Genesis 1:2 in Isaiah 45:18. It could be taken there as a noun or adverbially. In either case the sentence will end up saying about the same thing. This might help your case depending on whether it means that God did not create the earth so that it was at the very beginning “tohu (wabohu)” or that He did not create it with the ultimate purpose of being “tohu (wabohu).” It could be either way. You would, I assume, prefer to take it in the former rather than the latter way.

Just mythoughts then wrote:
“And Jeremiah starts off chapter 4 with the reference to the northern kingdom of Israel (peoples, 10 tribes,) “If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the LORD, return unto Me: and if thou wilt put away thine abominations out of My sight then thsalt thou not remove.

Then in verse 3 Jeremiah addresses Judah and Jerusalem. Jeremiah gives warnings and call to repentance. Then is verse 22 Jeremiah sums up the state of mind of the people and in verse 23 Jeremiah uses those specific Hebrew words first used in Genesis 1:2 ‘I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was (there is that non-existent verb even in italics in my KJV) *without form* and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.’”

Here the word “was” is lacking. In this you are correct. Hebrew, for the most part, lacks a copula, that is, what we think of as “is” and, depending on the tense context, sometimes “was.” Note carefully, I said, “for the most part.” Hebrew seems to prefer to express what we think of as “is/was” with simple apposition, somewhat like, for example, Russian, which also has no “is,” but does have “was.” In Genesis 1:2, “and the earth was formless and void,” the grammar is different than in Jeremiah. Whereas Jeremiah lacks the verb “was,” Genesis 1:2 does not. The verb “haytah” (Qal, feminine, singular, referring to “the earth”) is present. There are two grammatical questions to be asked: First, is it best to understand it as meaning something more like our “to be” or our “to become,” rather like the difference between Greek “eimi” (this is not the infinitive, but the first person singular form, which is the form under which you will find this verb in a Greek lexicon) and “gignomai”? Second, is it to be understood as a simple past or a pluperfect? I assume you would like to take it more as “become/gignomai” and as a pluperfect. Thus: “had become.” Grammatically this is possible, and has been argued back and forth by scholars of the language for a hundred years.

If it were to be taken than way (and just for the record, the Septuagint does not), one would have to consider the theological import. You appear to want to say that there was a flood that occurred chronologically between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. For support of this you said:

“Genesis 1:2 says there was a flood, and that is exactly what Jeremiah is describing. And obviously Peter understood what Jeremiah said about what Moses penned because Peter says IIPeter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of *old*, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:”

To this I would respond that Jeremiah says nothing of a flood, whether in the time of Genesis 1 or of its own time, that is, early 6th century B.C. Judah. You are inferring that based on your interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2. I repeat, direct support for such an interpretation does not exist in the Jeremiah 4 text. In addition, you seem to be saying that the waters by which the earth was destroyed (i.e., the flood) to which 2 Peter 3:6 refers is a reference not to the Noachic flood but to the flood you posit as having occurred chronologically between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. This would be truly a novel assertion and of late origin. Peter’s reference is certainly to the flood in Noah’s time.

If you want to consider what the text would be saying if Genesis 1:2 were to be read, for example, as, “Now the earth had become without form and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep,” that is not an unreasonable discussion. The grammar of the text certainly does allow that translation. But if you want to infer that this means that a flood had taken place and a previously existing civilization has perished, not only are you going way beyond the grammar and vocabulary of Genesis 1:1-2, but you are asserting things to be found no where else in the Bible.

And, yes, I did look at your other references, and they don’t - excuse the pun - hold water.

If I have misstated your position, please restate it and correct me. Also, if you want to drop the sarcasm, that would be nice ... but, I suppose, not necessary if you feel you must continue with it.

More than anything, I am trying to understand why you feel you must hold for this position. If you would state that clearly it would help me understand where you are coming from.

Sigh. My statement is a common one on the threads when mormons use “heavenly father” as a proper noun.

Traditionally God’s proper name is YHVH in Hebrew. I am not part of the group that insisnts we need to know God’s personal name to be saved. We are saved by Yeshua.

And while you may not have specifically stated that God ‘organized matter’, your statements of a prior flood logically follow that.

So DO you believe in ex-nihilo?

You really need to get a basic grasp on the Bible, your misinterpretations are epic. You keep claiming you believe the Bible but you seem to only believe what you THINK the Bible says and you appear to READ INTO (eisegesis) rather than READ OUT of (exegesis) the text.

You have been kidnapped by your ‘pet theory’. Thank you for proving that a little knowledge can be dangerous.

seriously. Ok, I will stop feeding the troll.

You’ll not get far with this bunch. Eisegesis is their specialty.

A lot of heat, but no light is the result.

I have met few Christians that read with understanding...

I've never heard of or met a LDS who has stayed LDS after having reading scripture with understanding and spiritual discernment.

Just mythoughts wrote:

“What I do know is what Isaiah penned, chapter 45 verse 18 with regard to Genesis 1:2 where the Heavenly Father stated without question He did NOT created this earth in vain, using the very specific Hebrew words as found in Genesis 1:2.”

Actually, there is only one of the words of Genesis 1:2 in Isaiah 45:18. It could be taken there as a noun or adverbially. In either case the sentence will end up saying about the same thing. This might help your case depending on whether it means that God did not create the earth so that it was at the very beginning “tohu (wabohu)” or that He did not create it with the ultimate purpose of being “tohu (wabohu).” It could be either way. You would, I assume, prefer to take it in the former rather than the latter way.

For the sake of time and space and specifity I pointed to only Isaiah 45:18. But per your response I will point to what we in the English readers have the Bible through the translations been given chapters and verses, to the whole chapter of Isaiah 45 as to the subject of verse 18.

And actually Genesis 1:1 AND 2 are referenced in explanation as to the Purpose and Plan. As Isaiah is quoting the Heavenly Father's declaration of Genesis 1:1 AND the follow up that is now our Genesis 1:2, that was penned by Moses.

Isaiah 45:19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth:

I said not unto the seed of Jacob, 'Seek ye Me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right..... rest of the chapter...

YET notice the words of Christ in Matthew 13:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet (that would be David, Psalms 78:2), saying, "I will open my mouth in parables: I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world."

This word foundation is the Greek verb kataballo which means casting down/overthrow, and world is 'age'.

And... Genesis 1:2 as noted is the place where this kataballo is first described that ended as Peter says that age or 'world' that WAS... "the foundation of the world" is found in Ephesians 1:4 wherein the 'chosen/elect' were predestined to carry out/perform certain duties... I might add for the positive and negative in this age where in the 'soul/spirit' is place in the flesh vessle at conception. Which is why Christ told Nicodumus that one had to be born from above (NOT again) to see the kingdom of God.... John 3. The requirement to enter the Kingdom of God was to believe upon the only Begotten Son.

Just mythoughts then wrote:

“And Jeremiah starts off chapter 4 with the reference to the northern kingdom of Israel (peoples, 10 tribes,) “If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the LORD, return unto Me: and if thou wilt put away thine abominations out of My sight then thsalt thou not remove. Then in verse 3 Jeremiah addresses Judah and Jerusalem. Jeremiah gives warnings and call to repentance. Then is verse 22 Jeremiah sums up the state of mind of the people and in verse 23 Jeremiah uses those specific Hebrew words first used in Genesis 1:2 ‘I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was (there is that non-existent verb even in italics in my KJV) *without form* and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.’”

Here the word “was” is lacking. In this you are correct. Hebrew, for the most part, lacks a copula, that is, what we think of as “is” and, depending on the tense context, sometimes “was.” Note carefully, I said, “for the most part.” Hebrew seems to prefer to express what we think of as “is/was” with simple apposition, somewhat like, for example, Russian, which also has no “is,” but does have “was.” In Genesis 1:2, “and the earth was formless and void,” the grammar is different than in Jeremiah. Whereas Jeremiah lacks the verb “was,” Genesis 1:2 does not. The verb “haytah” (Qal, feminine, singular, referring to “the earth”) is present. There are two grammatical questions to be asked: First, is it best to understand it as meaning something more like our “to be” or our “to become,” rather like the difference between Greek “eimi” (this is not the infinitive, but the first person singular form, which is the form under which you will find this verb in a Greek lexicon) and “gignomai”? Second, is it to be understood as a simple past or a pluperfect? I assume you would like to take it more as “become/gignomai” and as a pluperfect. Thus: “had become.” Grammatically this is possible, and has been argued back and forth by scholars of the language for a hundred years. If it were to be taken than way (and just for the record, the Septuagint does not), one would have to consider the theological import. You appear to want to say that there was a flood that occurred chronologically between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. For support of this you said:

Jeremiah 4:22 For My people is foolish, they have not known ME; they are sottish (=stupid) children, and they have none understanding: they are *WISE* ( I really am trying to leave the sarcasm out, but the name Daniel keeps popping into my mind.) to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.

I was not joking about leaving out the sarcasm but with the handle Belteshazzar and its origin and who it represents linguistically and Biblically is not lost on me. The name Daniel means from the Hebrew, God is my Judge.

“Genesis 1:2 says there was a flood, and that is exactly what Jeremiah is describing. And obviously Peter understood what Jeremiah said about what Moses penned because Peter says IIPeter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of *old*, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:”

To this I would respond that Jeremiah says nothing of a flood, whether in the time of Genesis 1 or of its own time, that is, early 6th century B.C. Judah. You are inferring that based on your interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2. I repeat, direct support for such an interpretation does not exist in the Jeremiah 4 text. In addition, you seem to be saying that the waters by which the earth was destroyed (i.e., the flood) to which 2 Peter 3:6 refers is a reference not to the Noachic flood but to the flood you posit as having occurred chronologically between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. This would be truly a novel assertion and of late origin. Peter’s reference is certainly to the flood in Noah’s time. If you want to consider what the text would be saying if Genesis 1:2 were to be read, for example, as, “Now the earth had become without form and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep,” that is not an unreasonable discussion. The grammar of the text certainly does allow that translation. But if you want to infer that this means that a flood had taken place and a previously existing civilization has perished, not only are you going way beyond the grammar and vocabulary of Genesis 1:1-2, but you are asserting things to be found no where else in the Bible.

Remember the mental/spiritual condition of "MY people" in Jeremiah 4:22.... AND then Jeremiah proceeds to say... 23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light....... This comes directly from Genesis 1:2 and 1:2 says there was deep waters.....

And, yes, I did look at your other references, and they don’t - excuse the pun - hold water. If I have misstated your position, please restate it and correct me. Also, if you want to drop the sarcasm, that would be nice ... but, I suppose, not necessary if you feel you must continue with it. More than anything, I am trying to understand why you feel you must hold for this position. If you would state that clearly it would help me understand where you are coming from.

Daniel 12:8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, 'O MY LORD, what shall be the end of these things?'

9 And he said, 'Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand......

Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Peter, Paul (and others) and the WORDS of Christ demonstrate the TOE is a lie and a big deception.

I've never heard of or met a LDS who has stayed LDS after having reading scripture with understanding and spiritual discernment.

I cannot comment on LDS doctrine. I don't have the time to spend in fleshing out other doctrines... I have been approached far more by peoples asking me IF I was 'born again' than by any LDS missionaries seeking me to join their church. Christ did not say you have to be born again He told Nicodemus the first requirement to 'see' the kingdom of God was to be born from above....

Oh and I did live for many years in Independence, MO., and ran into my share of reformed LDS'ers...

You’ll not get far with this bunch. Eisegesis is their specialty. A lot of heat, but no light is the result.

Well I readily accept that I am not fleshly degrees in the languages, and all that goes with that highly esteemed compartmentalized learning. But at least I know that Christ never told Nicodemus that one had to be born again from the Greek.