God or Lord God?

Has anyone else noticed that in the KJV of the old testement it describes the creation of the earth and all the host of them as created by God and describes how he was done and rested in chapter 2 verse 3. It then goes on to describe how the Lord God (Lord is in italics) comes in verse 4 out of nowhere, after God is finished, and by verse 7 decides to create man! Why all of the sudden is God refered to as Lord God? Why the Lord prefix all of the sudden. I have several working theorys but would love to hear others. I believe either more than one, or direct evidence to the melding of SOl Invictus by Constintine the Great in 325 a.d.. also could't help but notice in the preface how they ask that "the revisions of the bible have been done for the good of the people and should not be met with suspicion". Ok, try that with any other aspect in life, like say my bank account or history books, and see if I don't have suspicions. I think the church counts on ignorance, jsut my opinion

During the time of the KJV translation. Lord refers to:A man of high rank in a feudal society or in one that retains feudal forms and institutions. and The general masculine title of nobility and other ranks.

basically when man was now of the earth he becomes in refernce to the time of the KJV translation, a lord. You know the old term "a lord and his vassels?" we are the vassals essetially. so thats the idea. theres no conspiracy here sorry. also if you look at the little references at the bottom of your bible that gives insight into each verse it tells you the same, it will also add that the subsitution of the word lord is also used as a general term because the hebrews never wrote or said the true name of God, which would have been YHWH, or yahweh, simply out of respect. so lord is also a general descriptive term as well.


Hope that clears it up for you.

Digitalgrl

[edit on 10/01/2004 by DigitalGrl]

I think God sounds better than Lord God.

When you put an adjective in front of God (in this case Lord) it makes the word God seem like it needs help. Same goes for Sun God, Death God, Blue God, White God, you get the point.

God. Period.

I know this doens't have much to do with the other two posts, but if I had to choose, I'd just go with God.

-O

Digitgrl,

Thank u for ur response, but sorry to say that does not explain why God creates man in Chapter 1 verse 27 then someone call the Lord God creates man all over again in Chapter 2 verse 7. why would God create man twice and under two identies i.e. God and Lord God? Also, my bible was not written with someone else's opinion at the bottom in small print and even it were I would not take it as gospel (no pun intended). I like to think that when someone writes someting down, they write what they intend to say. How many times can history be "revised or interpreted? How many time has the story of Vietnam had to be revised so that we win? That is difference between fact and speculation. Fact cannot be revised. Its fact. Which you also failed to address in your post. It makes more sense to say the two versions, the pagan and essene beliefs were both compartmentalized in the first chapter leaning toward one belief and the second appeasing the beliefs of others. Do not forget that Christianty was officially formed in 325 ad by Constintine the Great by melding the essene Christian faith with the pagan sun worship of SOl Invictus. COMBINED. Lets stop "interpreting" things so they fit our beliefs, lets just read the book and form opinions. I don't need someone to revise what has been said or written unless it was wrong to begin with. Either way it does not make sense to the unobjective rational mind, who is not trying to stuff a square into a circle. Regardless, thank you for taking the time to post. Your one step closer to free-thought, in my opinion

Originally posted by kleverone
Has anyone else noticed that in the KJV of the old testement it describes the creation of the earth and all the host of them as created by God and describes how he was done and rested in chapter 2 verse 3. It then goes on to describe how the Lord God (Lord is in italics) comes in verse 4 out of nowhere, after God is finished, and by verse 7 decides to create man! Why all of the sudden is God refered to as Lord God? Why the Lord prefix all of the sudden. I have several working theorys but would love to hear others. I believe either more than one, or direct evidence to the melding of SOl Invictus by Constintine the Great in 325 a.d.. also could't help but notice in the preface how they ask that "the revisions of the bible have been done for the good of the people and should not be met with suspicion". Ok, try that with any other aspect in life, like say my bank account or history books, and see if I don't have suspicions. I think the church counts on ignorance, jsut my opinion

I can't speak for the original languages but the word used for God in the verses asked about, according to The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon, is Elohim meaning #1
1. rulers, judges
2. divine ones
3. angels
4. gods

#2 (plural intensive - singular meaning)

1. god, goddess
2. godlike one
3. works or special possessions of God
4. the (true) God
5. God

In verse 7, interestingly enough, the "Lord" is translated as "Jehovah" (the pre-existing One), and the "God" is Elohim as above. Then in 3:3, it is Elohim alone, while satan is saying it, and from 3:8 on to 4:1 it is Jehovah Elohim again. In 4:1, Eve speaks of Him as Jehovah. and so He remains until 4:25 when Eve calls Him Elohim.

Well enough of the list. It would be very interesting if someone can enlighten us about the reason for the different ways of saying His Name.

Where did you find this statement?: ""the revisions of the bible have been done for the good of the people and should not be met with suspicion""

Where did you find this statement?: ""the revisions of the bible have been done for the good of the people and should not be met with suspicion""

The Zondervan KJV bible Preface to the 1873 edition, the last paragraph of the preface written by John R. Kohlenberger III.

originally posted by kleverone

Originally posted by curiousity

Where did you find this statement?: ""the revisions of the bible have been done for the good of the people and should not be met with suspicion""

The Zondervan KJV bible Preface to the 1873 edition, the last paragraph of the preface written by John R. Kohlenberger III.

Did they say what the revisions were? That is very very interesting. I'd like tohear from anyone who can offer some more info about this since I don't have access to the Preface you mentioned, kleverone

I will try to scan it ans post it for you!!! It is the Zondervan KJV.

www.zondervan.com

THe scan is barely ledgible so I will also type what it says:

"In the KJV GIft and award bible, Zondervan conforms its setting of the King james or Authorized Version to its most highly regarded edition: the Cambridge Paragraph Bible of 1873, edited by F.H.A. Scrivener. As in the case of the first edition of the version of 1611, this is done out of "zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising any thing ourselves or revising that which hath been laboured by others" ("The Translators to the Reader," the preface to the version of 1611). WIth the original translators, we hope that our efforts will be "welcomed", not "with suspicion" but with "love", and that the reissue fo this edition will contribute to improvement of this great treasure of the English-Speaking church. John R. Kohlenberger III


That is what it says word for word in the very last paragraph. Nice place to put it.

So much appreciate the extra trouble you went to...that is a very strange statement.
What we "devise ourselves" or revise of other's work leaves it pretty much open to the imagination just what was done, doesn't it?

For them to mention it seems sooo innocent in today's suspicious atmosphere, wonder why it didn't then?

thanks again!

Dear Curiosity,

It is my belief that is was never questioned then for the same reasons it is not questioned now. It is discouraged by the church to question anything having to do with Christianity or the bible. Having grown up in a non=denominational church, I have seen first hand how children are taught that questioning the bible is just the devil trying to lead you astray. A nice little incentive to keep buisness and not lose any members of the church to the truth I guess. Truth doesn't have to be revised or devised. Jsut another example of the church sneaking one in if you ask me. In my opinion anyone who refuses to hear or learn about other reliegions or thoughts out of fear of "backsliding" or intolerence needs to ask themselves, "If my beliefs are so true and Rock solid why do they need revised and devised and why can't I hear what all religions have to say before I "commit" to one. What would you do if you went to by a new car? would you just take the first one you saw because the man trying to sell it to you told you it was the only true car and that ford and chevy are of the devil and if you test drive that car you would perish. My point is, We are not naive when it comes to purchasing a vehicle, why would we be so in discovering our spirituality? Thanks for the input and keep it coming!

When the transilation says Lord God, in the hebrew it says YHVH(God's name) followed by the word for God. Because Jews dont pronounce Gods name, when they read in they say Adonai meaning master or lord.

First of all, thanks for the input, but still that does not explain why God created man was done, then did it again 9 verses later. It does also not address the Devising and revising talked about in the preface that shoudl not be met "with suspicion" but rather "with Love" so far no one has an ever remotely answered the question. The God or Lord God was more of a segue question. Which also doesn't answer my question because they were Calling him God 5 verses ago why swith his name after he creates man for the SECOND TIME in a matter of 9 verses. PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE POST before answering. why does God create man twice and why has the church done so many revisions over the years, and if they had to revise then it msut have been unclear to begin with. Those are the questions I would like answered. Thank you for your time and input

The word for God signifies the justice aspect of God while YHVH signifies mercy and eternity. This means that man and also the whole world weren't just created for being ruled but it was done with compassion for without either there would be chaos.

Originally posted by eslag90
The word for God signifies the justice aspect of God while YHVH signifies mercy and eternity. This means that man and also the whole world weren't just created for being ruled but it was done with compassion for without either there would be chaos.

That has nothing to do with the questions that I asked about man being created God resting and then having the Lord God come along and create man again in a matter of 9 verses. It also has nothing to do with the self admitted devising and revising of a supposed Historical accounts. Why? We are all well aware of how changing just one word can effect everything. Also how many times throughout History has this happened? How can there be currently over 50 editions and version of one bible? Who is correct? Anyone????

kleverone-

i think you are misinterpreting the chapter. if you read all the way from chapter 1 to chapter 2 you'll see that the tense the author is speaking in is different.

in chapter one it is describing what IS being created
and in chapter 2 when it is speaking of the shrubs and man it is saying this is the account of what WAS created.

..its hard to explain writing it down lol..easier if i was able to just talk to you lol.

But in chapter 2...its giving a summary of what just happened in chapter 1 and then leading into the actual place God put adam and eve...in eden.
so he isnt creating them AGAIN, the author is just reviewing, what happened.

see this is what the author writes at the start of chapter 2
"This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they WERE created."
the author goes from talking about the 7th day of rest and then ends chapter 1.
then at the start of chapter 2 he says here is the account of the heavens and the earth when they WERE created...goes into a quick shpeal of what happened and then starts talking about eden.

so why is he refrenced as lord...well its symantics really, and it has to do with tense. the first chapter man isnt here yet...he is in the midst of being created. the second chapter man is already here and therefore is currently a vassel for the lord, so God is Lord over him. the author takes chapter 1 as how God would have been if man wasnt here. how could man be a vassel yet? you know what i mean. but since chapter 2 is a review hes saying "The lord CREATED his vassels from the dirt..etc.." and chapter 1 is like "God is CREATING these beings..." like i said, its easier to describe in person. but that is the deal

but, i get where it can be confusing. but in the chapter he isnt in the midst of creating man again. creation is being quickly reviewed and then a new subject is being explained.

and as far as suggesting that you look at refrences at the bottom. most bibles have them. and they aren't opinons. they are descriptions of words for the orginal language, telling you where they come from, and how they have been used through out history etc. so i just thought it would help.

Kind Regards,
Digitalgrl

DigitalGrl-

First off, Let me thank you for your time and input. It is a very interesting theory. Although it is just that, theory! It is certainly not presented as a recap whatsoever. it is told as two seperate accounts. So for you to say that it is simply a review of what happened in the first chapter is pure speculation on your part. And to present it as anything other is either naive or just your mind reconstructing what it says so that is justifies the perspective that you were taught (presumably) by a priest of some other "Religous" Scholar. It blatanly says it chapter 1 verse 27 that God created man in his own image, male and female. then he does it again several verses into chapter 2. Also the beginning of Chapter 2 is still talking about the first and doesn't pick up on the second creation of man untill verse 7. merely a nice disguise if you ask me. I see your point and how your version could be interpreted, but it is simply a theory, just like mine. Thank you for the psot though. A great explanation on your part!!!!!

i guess i dont really see how its a theory. its writtent the way it is written. its pretty simple to see that it is a recap of chapter 1. nowwhere does it say he is creating them again at all. and as far as the name calling...(naive..or brainwashed, reconstructing things..etc) i just dont see the need for it. ive simply wrote what i know respectfully to you.

chapter 2 is called the SUPERSCRIPTION of creation for a reason. it goes over the creation story of chapter one. and it introduces the following materials of the earth and mans relationship to it. because it touches on these ideas in genesis chapter 5 etc..

Chapter 2 is a description of how things were prior to creation and after the creation of man...its in a different tense. this is common in near eastern creation stories, and this is evidenced by the word play on of the hebrew word HEB or Adam (translated in the kjv as the word man), because it introduces a motif that shares the charcterisitics of this tradition. Chapter 2 is a review of chapter one taken from the standpoint of human beings and their relationship to the soil. this is known as SUPERSCRIPTION, and thats why it is termed as the SUPERSCRIPTION of creation. its not 2 seperate events, they are the same event described in different tenses to teach 2 totally different concepts.

i didnt get this from a priest or something, its a common thing you study when majoring in the histories of western and eastern civilization. Eastern writings of creation all share a commonality in this. i was trying to describe the concept simply in my previous post. maybe this post will explain in better. this isnt a theory, its a common style of writing in eastern tradition, that surpasses religious boundaries. i dont know if you have had access to any formal education in western and eastern civilizations, but i know these concepts are something you dont really get into unless you have, so im trying to explain it the best way i can. there is a lot of background evidence and learning that intertwines with all of this that is hard to touch on in a few posts online lol. but if you are interested in this type of thing, i would definatly say to go take some classes at a university or travel to other countries and speak with the people who are already in that culture. thats what has helped me the most.getting to talk to the people that live it everday makes a big difference. but, im just doing my best to contribute to your thread. i hope ive given you some info that helps explain this better.

kind Regards,
Digitalgrl

I believe digitalgirl has been answering your questions but ya'll are talking past one another here. I'd recommend looking into contemporary discourse analysis for a more detailed look into what digitalgirl is trying to explain... you're basically interpreting Scripture as a literalist would (eg a young earth creationist).

Reasons.org (long read but worth it)
Description of the position
The specific features of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1—2:3 (and of passages that reflect on it) for which this interpretation (in its developed form) seeks to account include:

1. The verb tenses in Gen 1:1-2 mark those verses as background to the narrative: further analysis indicates that verse 1 designates an event as an unspecified time prior to the conditions of verse 2, while verse 2 describes the conditions as the first day begins in verse 3 (which uses the narrative tense for the first time).

[...snip...]
Strengths of the position
2. The toolkit of discourse and literary methods, when applied to the rest of Genesis 2—3, yield such results as: rejection of source-critical theories of the passages'origin; affirmation that we do not have here two "creation accounts"; resolution of alleged contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2 (e.g. at 2:5-6, 19); vindication of the Pauline reading of Genesis 3, including Adam's role as first human and covenant head of humanity, and different role relationships for men and women within the context of their equal bearing of God's image. Application of these tools does not in any way question the "historicity" of the events narrated in these chapters, but in fact supports it. These methods attempt to systematize what good grammarians and exegetes through the ages have "felt."

3. Though the interpretive scheme itself, as well as some of the arguments employed for it, may sound novel to some, it does not actually involve any grammatical or semantic innovations.

4. The developed arguments for the view claim to account for all the details of the text.

The link goes into more detail on this, also discusses objections and alternatives... a good place to start imo, hope you find it helpful. Not trying to squash your post here, I understand why you bring it up and it's a debate Biblical scholars still have today. Most are never satisfied with the 'it's two perspectives of one creation versus two seperate creations' interpretation and I doubt we'll resolve it in this thread. However I must admit to not seeing the conspiracy here. The debate is very old and if we're being duped I can't imagine why or what Constantine has to do with it. Don't mind me though, I'm a lil' slow on the uptake.

Further Reading:
Wikipedia: Biblical hermenutics

Godandscience.org: Doesn't Genesis One Contradict Genesis Two? also see: God's Names speak to and reveal...

Wikipedia: Documentary hypothesis/JDEP theory (this is the position you're, more or less, arguing in favour of, correct?)

The Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship (“Tablet Theory” suggests that portions of Genesis were originally written on clay tablets by men who personally experienced the events described. The tablets were later compiled by Moses.")

Sorry 'bout all the links, just trying to cover all the bases/interpretations; think I did that. Also there's no need for comments like 'you've just been brainwashed by some priest' simply because we disagree.

God (the FATHER who is pure spirit) created 'man.'

And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.
(Revelation 21:17 KJV)

The angel, the Elohim (many membered united deity which is the only manifestation of God we're able to comprehend) then were/are LORD over creation. And so they created it--and they created mortal 'man.' (the 'beast' see Ecc 3:18-19)

What did Moses know was the name of Elohim?

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
(Exodus 3:14 KJV)

'THAT' (H834) isn't translated very well--because it is the essence of that which remains undefined and never static, contained, or limited; yet unchanged; alive yet unseen...

From Strong's Concordance:
H834
אשׁר
'ăsher
ash-er'
A primitive relative pronoun (of every gender and number); who, which, what, that; also (as adverb and conjunction) when, where, how, because, in order that, etc.: - X after, X alike, as (soon as), because, X every, for, + forasmuch, + from whence, + how (-soever), X if, (so) that ([thing] which, wherein), X though, + until, + whatsoever, when, where (+ -as, -in, -of, -on, -soever, -with), which, whilst, + whither (-soever), who (-m, -soever, -se). As it is indeclinable, it is often accompanied by the personal pronoun expletively, used to show the connection.

'I AM' (self-existent) is not a name....only God knows God's name...but God created His Son and the Son is the 'self existent.' But God the FATHER is even beyond anything understood as 'existence.' God IS existence...

We call the one whom we swear fealty to, our LORD. So being the LORD God or just God depends on whether the LORD God made you, or if God made you...

Yehoshua (Jesus) as the Christ, or Messiah means, literally:

I AM who saves, the Anointed of the FATHER.

He wasn't Yeshua but Yehoshua.