Thank you, but it is not an assumption. You made the assumption that they are when the original Hebrew does not have the word "both," nor does it have punctuation. Punctuation was inserted in the English translations and are constantly being updated. A closer translation using Hebrew grammar would be: "And levy a tribute unto the LORD, a tribute of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred of the persons, and a tribute of the beeves, and a tribute of the *****, and a tribute of the sheep." We know for sure that this is closer to the original because of the context in which the word is used throughout all of scripture, especially the writings of Moses.
We are talking about the English word
soul. You are changing the subject to the Hebrew word
nephesh (which is also used for both man and beast.)
. The English translation of that passage does demonstrate that the word "soul" can apply to either man and beast in the biblical English. A diversion will just delay the inevitable and require additional scriptures to prove the expanded scope of the challenge.
"Soul" does include living things (man and beast) in English. I suggest that if we are going to use a word like
soul within a biblical context, that we should continue to use it as the scripture uses it, rather than applying our own different meanings on top of it.
Are you really going to argue against me on this point after the stance you made with NWL? Just as Son of God in the NT denotes position of authority, So it does in the OT as well. Look at Psalms 8:5 and Hebrews 2:7,9. It was clearly used as a position of authority in Job. "Our image" in Genesis is talking about God, if it meant anything more than what it says, it would say it, all of the writings of Moses are straight forward, why would the first chapter of Genesis be the only one that is not?. It is never safe to deduct, assume, or infer anything that is not explicitly implied by every context available.
I am not sure I understand your point, unless you are suggesting that "image" has a single fixed meaning regardless of context. When something is created after an image, it is a likeness, with similarity. When someone is the image of the invisible God, and He whom we know to be that image is said to have created all things, that does point to the visible being the one and the same as that which was beforehand invisible.
Jesus was the image of God, Jesus is God, not a contradiction, but a confirmation.
Furthermore, you cannot pick and choose what is figurative and what is literal. Do you really think that I haven't considered the passage in Job? Look at verse 7 again. You cannot claim that "the Son's of God" was meant literally just after a figurative personification of the morning stars was made.
What did you interpret "morning stars" as in that passage? Considering how Hebrew makes statements in parallel, that seems to be another name for the angels of God. Nor would the be the only place where such a convention is used. Revelation also uses "stars" when (most people agree) it is speaking of angels.
Rev 12:4
(4)
And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
However, let's grant that you are not persuaded that the angels of God clapped their hands in joy with the creation of the earth. When do you consider the angels to have entered the picture? Before the creation of man on the sixth day, or after?
Please choose, and be ready for these questions:
a) If you say it was after the sixth day, how did the serpent enter the picture? After the sixth day, it says God rested, implying no more creation.
b) But if you say it was before the sixth day, then it is self evident that the angels of God were present when the creation of the earth was finished, and likewise appropriate that they "shouted with joy" as spoken of in Job. And as such, for what point are you arguing?
I will grant you that you are smarter than most I have come across, and know grammar and how to read much better than most who argue on TOL, but it seems that you pick and choose where you read most carefully. You are still reading personal inferences into the text like most modern "New Testament Christians."
Can you please clarify which of those answers a) or b) you are choosing in relation to whether the angels of God were present, when God completed the creation of the earth, and then said, "Let us make man in our image?"
