May I ask a question of this word, as it is multifold in definition!Do you think Genesis 3:8 is just truly an opinion, on whether people thought the context of the scripture was literal, or an Anthropomorphism?Translated from Hebrew means"to walk', in Greek translation it is divided into two words; Anthropos; man, and Morphe; form.In Leviticus the same Hebrew word ;walk , is used ,when G-d spoke about moving with the Israelites, and becoming thier people, but in Genesis, the text is used as a literary device mostly for the enjoyment and edification of the readers. This is a question my Grandson in Seminary asked me. I have my own opinion , I just wondered how others see this question?
Well ; with six replies ' this seems to be a hot issue? To me it seems G-d walked with man until He sinned . It seems His presence then went into man[ messias, annointing] to direct man from himself?Am I right? It's confusing to me , and I wonder how demoninational secular theology fit's into Judaic truth, that all !Anyone out there?
I take Genesis 3:8 to mean that God walked with man, otherwise He would make no sound and Adam heard the sound of Him walking. He who made the feet, can He not walk?
"in Genesis, the text is used as a literary device mostly for the enjoyment and edification of the readers."
This kind of statement smacks of arrogance to me.
I take Genesis 3:8 to mean that God walked with man, otherwise He would make no sound and Adam heard the sound of Him walking. He who made the feet, can He not walk?
"in Genesis, the text is used as a literary device mostly for the enjoyment and edification of the readers."
This kind of statement smacks of arrogance to me.
I totally agree!. It seems though this scripture [G-3:8]is a turning of G-d from man ; a separation from the closeness of His relationship, as mans sin makes man becomes singular;trnslated In Hebrew; As one of us[Genesis3:22]Nothing like secular Christian theology? No wonder Judaism has a hard time with Christianity, and then the Muslims doctrine of Jesus; I'm getting ready on my next post; End of the world; to try to explain the muslim belief correlated of the madhi to the anti christ of Daniel , and Revelation, and they say;Jesus admits he is a muslim, and not the son of G-d, and the Mahdi will convert the real Christians to muslim, and killl the swine Jews , and remove the cross[ referring to killing the true believers in Christ, and;Israel] Talk about a messed up world? Thank you Thomas for the answer!I got a bit carried away. [Righteous anger moment!!!!!!!!!!!!], but it correlates with the lacksidasical non-shalont attitude of alot of churchs today! as life is just one big happy family! Don't worry ,be happy; soon we'll be dead theology! It takes my breath away!I guess thats called slain in the spirit?{ Ezekial 1:28]
I believe that a lot of the trouble in Islam and rabbinical Judaism is that an Aristotelian view of God got fused into the thinking and is used to "reinterpret" the Bible and theology. Aristotle's view says that this world is basically material, but God is completely separate from material = pure form, meaning purely non-material. This comes out in the Islamic declaration "far be it from God that he should have a son." Since the Tanach clearly says that God has sons, Judaism cannot go that far, but the rabbis instead say that any son of God cannot be divine himself. The rabbis says that God must be an absolute unity, not a compound one. Why? Because, according to Aristotle, God is too pure to be a mix of anything. The idea of God sharing his existence with anything physical is a violation of the Aristotelian concept of this pure and separate God that cannot walk in His own creation. These kinds of concepts were mixed into Christian belief also by Thomas Aquinas. Therefore you get all this talk about anthropomorphisms. It sounds so educated and erudite, and those of us who want to accept God as walking and sheltering us under the shadow of His wings are belittled as uninitiated. The same people belittle anyone who believes that God created the world in six days, and thus do not understand the "symbology of the creation myth." I would not want to be in the shoes of any of those people when they stand before God and try to explain how they were so smart that they could tell God what He really wanted to say.