It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Smigg
I thought something of the kind was coming, because your technique is transparent. The innocent-sounding question designed to draw out an answer, then an attack on the answer.
I wil give an answer to your immediate question, but I won't enter into any further debate on that issue here for this reason;
The topic of this thread is Psalm 133. The philosophy of ATS is that the subject being discussed in a thread is the topic defined by the opening post, and anything wandering away from that subject is "off-topic".
The deliberate derailing of religious threads by sending discussion off into irrelevant topics used to be a common strategy on these boards. For that reason I've always made a point of refusing to be drawn off-topic in my own threads. I stick to the subject in hand. It's possible that my own refusal to play ball is one of the reasons why the anti-religious trolls gave up trying and went away.
In future, if you want to trip me up by asking awkward questions, you will need to wait until I launch a thread entitled "Please try to trip me up by asking awkward questions". If you ask an awkward question in a thread of your own, I will respond if I feel like doing it.
Now to the question you posted. You have chosen a bad counter-example, because there is no statement in the text of Genesis about Adam seeing God.
On Old Testament examples of "seeing God" in general (e.g.Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel), the short answer is that none of them "see" God in any real sense. No man can see God, as John rightly says, because no man's mind can take in the fullness of what God really is. It would be like trying to pour a gallon into a pint pot. Whenever any Old Testament figure "sees" God, the most that he sees is a symbolic image accommodating itself to his understanding, and designed to give him some sense of "being in the presence of God". It's like a filter, shielding his eyes. "The angel of the Lord" is just such an image.
So you're hoping to achieve things by the old adolescent strategy of "I can prove religion wrong by finding contradictions in the Bible! Ha, ha, ha!" How very boring.
originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Smigg
I do sometimes respond to people asking genuine questions looking for greater understanding.
But a genuine seeker after truth would have asked both questions together.
originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Smigg
NO ONE has because the father is an all consuming fire, a fire infolding upon itself.
I would not like to come into the presence of the Almighty Father because of the fact he is in the midst of fire. to draw near in a sinful body would have burned us up. But Jesus, the fullness of the father and the godhead bodily, being in the likeness of a man, that devouring fire is not seen. What we see is his (the father) nature displayed, his (the father) holiness displayed, his (the father) endurance displayed, his (the father) will displayed and his (the father) love displayed.
Deut 4:24 For the LORD thy God [is] a consuming fire, [even] a jealous God.
John 4:24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.
Hebrews 12:29 For our God [is] a consuming fire.
originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Smigg
anything but believe the Bible.
While one verse says he is spirit two verses say he is a consuming fire.
Deut 4:24 For the LORD thy God [is] a consuming fire, [even] a jealous God.
John 4:24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.
Hebrews 12:29 For our God [is] a consuming fire.
originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Smigg
anything but believe the AV 1611 Bible.