Bible Options Bible Study Software
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Gen 19:24 – Did G-d on earth command G-d in heaven?
#1
A commonly misunderstood verse in Genesis deals with the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah. Like any other verse in Tanakh, we need to examine the grammar, context, and other scriptures to fully understand what is going on. A superficial reading can cause confusion.

Looking at the grammar in Gen 19:24, we notice again that the verbs associated with Hashem, himetir/rained, is singular in nature, showing that Hashem is a singular person. Throughout the entire Tanakh, the name Hashem is always singular and implies no plurality, 1 Kings 18:39. We see in this verse in 1 Kings that Hashem’s name, YKVK, and His title/name of Creator, Elokim, are both associated with a singular “He”. If you look at the Greek for 1 Kings 18:39, you'll find the term for singular god, theos, is used so there is no plurality implied even for the Greek translators.

A reading of Gen 19:25 shows that Hashem, He, is singular, and responsible for the destruction of the cities. There aren’t multiple gods on earth and heaven exacting punishment. We can see this by examining the events in Gen 18. In Gen 18:9,10, there are two conversations going on, but they are both with angels, presumably. One angel, which is supposed to be G-d, says he’ll return when Isaac is born, Gen 18:14. But, we see that in Gen 21:1-3, the angel does not return, nor is there any other physical appearance of G-d, only a fulfillment of His word. This is in line with Isa 55:11 and Psalms 103:20. So with this, we see that G-d was not on the earth at the time of Gen 19:24 because if Hashem did not return for Isaac’s birth in a physical form, then he wasn’t with Abraham either in the form of any of the three angels. Angels merely represent G-d but are not G-d, Ex 7:1 (Moses is called G-d, but he is not The G-d). Please see post #1 in the thread “Gen 1:26 – What is going on here?” to see that people are called angels too, like King David.

So, Gen 19:24 is only stating that the verdict for Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction came from heaven, and wasn’t initiated from earth. Gen 4:23, 1 Kings 1:33, Esther 8:8, speak in a similar fashion where the subject speaks about himself in a different person sense. So the style of speaking in Gen 19:24 is found throughout other passages in Tanakh.
#2
200 AD Tertullian "That is a still grander statement [of Christ's deity] which you will find expressly made in the Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." There was One "who was," and there was another "with whom" He was. But I find in Scripture the name Lord also applied to them Both: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand." And Isaiah says this: "Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? " Now he would most certainly have said Thine Arm, if he had not wished us to understand that the Father is Lord, and the Son also is Lord. A much more ancient testimony [of Christ's deity] we have also in Genesis: "Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven." Now, either deny that this is Scripture; or else (let me ask) what sort of man you are, that you do not think words ought to be taken and understood in the sense in which they are written, especially when they are not expressed in allegories and parables, but in determinate and simple declarations?"

Ge:19:24: Then YHVH rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the YHVH out of heaven;

JUST AS YESHUA MADE THE JUDGMENT ON SODOM AND GOMORRAH HE AGAIN DELCARED IT BELOW IN JOHN'S GOSPEL.

John:5:22: For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

Zec:2:8: For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.
Zec:2:9: For, behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants: and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me.
Zec:2:10: Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD.
Zec:2:11: And many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto thee.

DO YOU ALSO BELIEVE an angel or a man is being sent when it say's otherwise. It say's YHVH.
IT IS YESHUA!
#3
(12-20-2013, 11:15 AM)Tanachreader Wrote: 200 AD Tertullian "That is a still grander statement [of Christ's deity] which you will find expressly made in the Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." There was One "who was," and there was another "with whom" He was. But I find in Scripture the name Lord also applied to them Both: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand." And Isaiah says this: "Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? " Now he would most certainly have said Thine Arm, if he had not wished us to understand that the Father is Lord, and the Son also is Lord. A much more ancient testimony [of Christ's deity] we have also in Genesis: "Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven." Now, either deny that this is Scripture; or else (let me ask) what sort of man you are, that you do not think words ought to be taken and understood in the sense in which they are written, especially when they are not expressed in allegories and parables, but in determinate and simple declarations?"
Tertullian is not much of an authority for me. I explained the logic for this verse. If you found a problem with it, please show me where. Do you take the book of Song of Songs literally?

If you or Tertullian accept the plain sense of words, then why don't you accept Numbers 23:19?

Being sent by Hashem doesn't mean you are Hashem.
#4
(12-20-2013, 12:50 PM)Nachshon Wrote:
(12-20-2013, 11:15 AM)Tanachreader Wrote: 200 AD Tertullian "That is a still grander statement [of Christ's deity] which you will find expressly made in the Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." There was One "who was," and there was another "with whom" He was. But I find in Scripture the name Lord also applied to them Both: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand." And Isaiah says this: "Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? " Now he would most certainly have said Thine Arm, if he had not wished us to understand that the Father is Lord, and the Son also is Lord. A much more ancient testimony [of Christ's deity] we have also in Genesis: "Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven." Now, either deny that this is Scripture; or else (let me ask) what sort of man you are, that you do not think words ought to be taken and understood in the sense in which they are written, especially when they are not expressed in allegories and parables, but in determinate and simple declarations?"
Tertullian is not much of an authority for me. I explained the logic for this verse. If you found a problem with it, please show me where. Do you take the book of Song of Songs literally?

If you or Tertullian accept the plain sense of words, then why don't you accept Numbers 23:19?

Being sent by Hashem doesn't mean you are Hashem.

Nu:23:19: God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Jesus is not a liar! Neither is Jacob or the Baptist.
Yeshua is both the Son of God and the Son of Man.
Daniel 7:13–14
13 “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. 14 And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, ...

“Son of Man” is a Messianic title.
Jesus is the One who was given dominion and glory and a kingdom. When Jesus used this phrase, He was assigning the Son of Man prophecy to Himself.
The Jews of that era would have been intimately familiar with the phrase and to whom it referred.
Jesus was proclaiming Himself as the Messiah.

A second meaning of the phrase “Son of Man” is that Jesus was truly a human being.
Jesus was fully God (John 1:1), but He was also a human being (John 1:14). First John 4:2 tells us, “This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.”
#5
(12-20-2013, 02:13 PM)Tanachreader Wrote:
(12-20-2013, 12:50 PM)Nachshon Wrote:
(12-20-2013, 11:15 AM)Tanachreader Wrote: 200 AD Tertullian "That is a still grander statement [of Christ's deity] which you will find expressly made in the Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." There was One "who was," and there was another "with whom" He was. But I find in Scripture the name Lord also applied to them Both: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand." And Isaiah says this: "Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? " Now he would most certainly have said Thine Arm, if he had not wished us to understand that the Father is Lord, and the Son also is Lord. A much more ancient testimony [of Christ's deity] we have also in Genesis: "Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven." Now, either deny that this is Scripture; or else (let me ask) what sort of man you are, that you do not think words ought to be taken and understood in the sense in which they are written, especially when they are not expressed in allegories and parables, but in determinate and simple declarations?"
Tertullian is not much of an authority for me. I explained the logic for this verse. If you found a problem with it, please show me where. Do you take the book of Song of Songs literally?

If you or Tertullian accept the plain sense of words, then why don't you accept Numbers 23:19?

Being sent by Hashem doesn't mean you are Hashem.

Nu:23:19: God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Jesus is not a liar! Neither is Jacob or the Baptist.
Yeshua is both the Son of God and the Son of Man.f
The Torah doesn't lie, so if Hashem said He is not a man, which in your mind means Yeshua spoke these words too, then Yeshua was saying he is not a man. Do you see your own contradictions?
#6
(12-20-2013, 02:51 PM)Nachshon Wrote:
(12-20-2013, 02:13 PM)Tanachreader Wrote:
(12-20-2013, 12:50 PM)Nachshon Wrote:
(12-20-2013, 11:15 AM)Tanachreader Wrote: 200 AD Tertullian "That is a still grander statement [of Christ's deity] which you will find expressly made in the Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." There was One "who was," and there was another "with whom" He was. But I find in Scripture the name Lord also applied to them Both: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand." And Isaiah says this: "Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? " Now he would most certainly have said Thine Arm, if he had not wished us to understand that the Father is Lord, and the Son also is Lord. A much more ancient testimony [of Christ's deity] we have also in Genesis: "Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven." Now, either deny that this is Scripture; or else (let me ask) what sort of man you are, that you do not think words ought to be taken and understood in the sense in which they are written, especially when they are not expressed in allegories and parables, but in determinate and simple declarations?"
Tertullian is not much of an authority for me. I explained the logic for this verse. If you found a problem with it, please show me where. Do you take the book of Song of Songs literally?

If you or Tertullian accept the plain sense of words, then why don't you accept Numbers 23:19?

Being sent by Hashem doesn't mean you are Hashem.

Nu:23:19: God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Jesus is not a liar! Neither is Jacob or the Baptist.
Yeshua is both the Son of God and the Son of Man.f
The Torah doesn't lie, so if Hashem said He is not a man, which in your mind means Yeshua spoke these words too, then Yeshua was saying he is not a man. Do you see your own contradictions?
“Son of Man” is a Messianic title.
Jesus is the One who was given dominion and glory and a kingdom. When Jesus used this phrase, He was assigning the Son of Man prophecy to Himself.
The Jews of that era would have been intimately familiar with the phrase and to whom it referred.
Jesus was proclaiming Himself as the Messiah.

Does Rabbinical Judaism teach the Messiah will be a liar? I think not!
#7
(12-20-2013, 03:35 PM)Tanachreader Wrote:
(12-20-2013, 02:51 PM)Nachshon Wrote:
(12-20-2013, 02:13 PM)Tanachreader Wrote:
(12-20-2013, 12:50 PM)Nachshon Wrote:
(12-20-2013, 11:15 AM)Tanachreader Wrote: 200 AD Tertullian "That is a still grander statement [of Christ's deity] which you will find expressly made in the Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." There was One "who was," and there was another "with whom" He was. But I find in Scripture the name Lord also applied to them Both: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand." And Isaiah says this: "Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? " Now he would most certainly have said Thine Arm, if he had not wished us to understand that the Father is Lord, and the Son also is Lord. A much more ancient testimony [of Christ's deity] we have also in Genesis: "Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven." Now, either deny that this is Scripture; or else (let me ask) what sort of man you are, that you do not think words ought to be taken and understood in the sense in which they are written, especially when they are not expressed in allegories and parables, but in determinate and simple declarations?"
Tertullian is not much of an authority for me. I explained the logic for this verse. If you found a problem with it, please show me where. Do you take the book of Song of Songs literally?

If you or Tertullian accept the plain sense of words, then why don't you accept Numbers 23:19?

Being sent by Hashem doesn't mean you are Hashem.

Nu:23:19: God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Jesus is not a liar! Neither is Jacob or the Baptist.
Yeshua is both the Son of God and the Son of Man.f
The Torah doesn't lie, so if Hashem said He is not a man, which in your mind means Yeshua spoke these words too, then Yeshua was saying he is not a man. Do you see your own contradictions?
“Son of Man” is a Messianic title.
Jesus is the One who was given dominion and glory and a kingdom. When Jesus used this phrase, He was assigning the Son of Man prophecy to Himself.
The Jews of that era would have been intimately familiar with the phrase and to whom it referred.
Jesus was proclaiming Himself as the Messiah.

Does Rabbinical Judaism teach the Messiah will be a liar? I think not!
You didn't answer my questions because you have no reply for your own contradiction.

Judaism and Torah teach G-d is not a man.
#8
(12-20-2013, 03:42 PM)Nachshon Wrote:
(12-20-2013, 03:35 PM)Tanachreader Wrote:
(12-20-2013, 02:51 PM)Nachshon Wrote:
(12-20-2013, 02:13 PM)Tanachreader Wrote:
(12-20-2013, 12:50 PM)Nachshon Wrote: Tertullian is not much of an authority for me. I explained the logic for this verse. If you found a problem with it, please show me where. Do you take the book of Song of Songs literally?

If you or Tertullian accept the plain sense of words, then why don't you accept Numbers 23:19?

Being sent by Hashem doesn't mean you are Hashem.

Nu:23:19: God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Jesus is not a liar! Neither is Jacob or the Baptist.
Yeshua is both the Son of God and the Son of Man.f
The Torah doesn't lie, so if Hashem said He is not a man, which in your mind means Yeshua spoke these words too, then Yeshua was saying he is not a man. Do you see your own contradictions?
“Son of Man” is a Messianic title.
Jesus is the One who was given dominion and glory and a kingdom. When Jesus used this phrase, He was assigning the Son of Man prophecy to Himself.
The Jews of that era would have been intimately familiar with the phrase and to whom it referred.
Jesus was proclaiming Himself as the Messiah.

Does Rabbinical Judaism teach the Messiah will be a liar? I think not!
You didn't answer my questions because you have no reply for your own contradiction.

Judaism and Torah teach G-d is not a man.
You hardly ever answer everything in my post either.
Does Rabbinical Judaism teach the Messiah will be a liar? I think not!
There is plenty of passages that Jesus is not just a man but also God's Son.
Torah teaches the Messiah is Immanuel. God with us.
Also:
Isa:9:6: For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Simeon and Anna knew about the Messiah
Lu:2:30: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
Lu:2:31: Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;
Lu:2:32: A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
...
Lu:2:34: And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;
Lu:2:35: (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.

...
Lu:2:38: And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.
#9
(12-20-2013, 04:00 PM)Tanachreader Wrote: You hardly ever answer everything in my post either.
Does Rabbinical Judaism teach the Messiah will be a liar? I think not!
There is plenty of passages that Jesus is not just a man but also God's Son.
Torah teaches the Messiah is Immanuel. God with us.
Also:
Isa:9:6: For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
No, messiah is not a liar but just a man. I've answered Isa 9:6 in the thread "Yeshua and Isa 9:6(5)". Only the NT says J-sus is G-d in your mind, but not the Tanakh.

Please answer how Yeshua can say Numbers 23:19 and then turn around say he is a man?
#10
NUM 23:19 God as man will not lie...Man lies God do not, even as man...Even as a Son of man He do not have to repent (no sin)
The way you read is not the way God wrote it. You are not saved and can not understand Gods word.....

2Co_4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

Joh_8:58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."

Exo 15:2 The LORD is my strength and song, And He has become my salvation; He is my God, and I will praise Him; My father's God, and I will exalt Him.
Exo 15:3 The LORD is a man of war; The LORD is His name


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)