Genesis 1: 26 and the Trinity

YVR approach

Last Sunday, our church featured a fine, educational sermon on the Trinity. Genesis 1: 26 (a) was referenced from the English Standard Version:

Genesis 1:26 English Standard Version (ESV) 

26 Then God said, “Let us make man[a] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” Footnotes: Genesis 1:26 The Hebrew word for man (adam) is the generic term for mankind and becomes the proper name Adam 

Courson, via his commentary, is in basic agreement on what was preached on Sunday. He explains that in Genesis 1: 26 (a) the name God is translated from the Hebrew (In English, my add) as Elohim El is in singular form and Elohim refers to three or more. (4). Courson reasons the Trinity is being referenced here. (4).

Hebrew Bible scholar, Hamilton, acknowledges that based on 1: 26, God is multiple in nature. (22). Based on exegesis he reasons it is impossible to state that it is a reference to the Trinity. (22). Several unrealistic possibilities are offered as alternative interpretations (mythological interpretation as in God to other gods, or the Earth being in partnership with God, or God and the angels creating, or God speaking of his majesty in plural, or the plural of divine self-deliberation) and then finally Hamilton reasons that most likely 'us' refers to the fullness or plurality within the Godhead. (23). Perhaps God is referencing the Holy Spirit mentioned in 1:2 as the Spirit of God moved upon the earth...(23). Hamilton is not denying the Trinity, but he does reason that it is not revealed until the New Testament revelation. (23). Hamilton, I reason, would not necessarily agree with Courson that multiple in nature meant at least three, based on exegesis.

I would state that the Trinity is foreshadowed in Genesis.

The pastor on Sunday stated that God was in eternal relationship. I agree. I would like to state that God as infinite and eternal did not have eternal time to be in triune relationship. God did not have an eternal past to ponder in Trinity on whether or not he would create humanity, the universe and solar time, or a type of time for finite angels, without infinite knowledge, to reason in.

God has infinite knowledge and infinite, eternal, triune relationship. God simply is and created the finite, including finite humanity, the finite universe and finite time, both solar time and time within the spiritual realm for angelic beings, to reason from point A to point B. God may have created finite angelic beings within a type of finite time prior to creating the physical universe of time, matter and energy.

It is error to hold to a view that God reasoned in infinite time because this is a fatal problem of vicious regress and this is a fatal problem that is not reasonably solved. God simply reasoned and yet had infinite knowledge and fellowship within the Trinity.

In the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn discusses ‘infinite regress’ and mentions that this occurs in a vicious way whenever a problem tries to solve itself and yet remains with the same problem it had previously. Blackburn (1996: 324). A vicious regress is an infinite regress that does not solve its own problem, while a benign regress is an infinite regress that does not fail to solve its own problem. Blackburn (1996: 324). Blackburn writes that there is frequently room for debate on what is a vicious regress or benign regress. Blackburn (1996: 324). An example of a benign regress is infinite numbers both plus and minus, as they in reality represent conceptualized things as opposed to being real things.

BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Regress’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

The lawyer's fallacy

YVR approach

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Philosopher, Blackburn explains the many questions fallacy, of as The lawyer's fallacy, inferring or implying some type of guilt, when a person cannot provide a yes or no answer to each question. (230). It may not be possible for a factual answer to be provided to each and every question. (230).

Blackburn provides 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' (230). A yes or no answer would not suffice for someone that has never beaten his wife.

In not the identical way provided by Blackburn, a lawyer or critic could use this type of fallacious approach by insisting that truthfulness from the person being questioned requires a 100% ability to answer questions acceptably. A worldview could be challenged using a similar fallacy and then it could be concluded by the questioner to be a false worldview because, according to the questioner, each question was not adequately answered.

Infinite knowledge is not required for a (finite) person to be truthful and or for his/her worldview to be true, rather significant premises and conclusions need to be logical and reasonable and internally and externally certain. Reasonable (not 100%) certainty requiring, internally, logical and consistent, premises and conclusions and externally, premises and conclusions superior to counter arguments.

The lawyer's fallacy and my example is somewhat related to a reviewed fallacy below from 2016:

Complex Question Fallacy: Pirie review from June 4 2016

Brand new today, black blazer and black dress shoes for executive, ministry work, weddings and related. Groovy blankets courtesy my sweet Alberta Grandma. The brand new winter jacket I posted on Satire Und Theology, February 27 with a similar photo, received two large rips to seams in a downtown Toronto storm and is being fixed at the shop where I purchased the dress shoes. That winter jacket does not suffice for Ontario! It is for mild Vancouver area winters and like!

Progression and Restoration

April 10, 2018

Admittedly, it would be logical to philosophically contend that the universe and the earth has remained relatively the same. But Scripture documents that God has intervened and that the creator will restore the universe and earth.

2 Peter 3 from New American Standard Bible

3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” 5 For [a]when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. 7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. 8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and [b]its works will be [c]burned up.

MPhil, Bangor University, 2003: The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives 

At times, there is present theological progression in thought, for example Christ’s work established a New Covenant which replaced Old Testament Law, but there appears in Scripture from the Garden of Eden to the Holy City of Revelation, a consistent progressive plan of God to restore his creation. This revelation is seen in Scripture and the person of Christ which gives it a divine seal of approval. The Christian worldview of seeking a supernatural God points people to the cross and the resurrection. It turns them from trusting in self to trusting in God, who alone can provide the philosophical solution to the problem of evil and, more importantly, provide the theological remedy through Christ’s atoning work, which culminates in full restoration upon his return.

PhD, University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, 2010: Theodicy and Practical Theology

The development and ultimate restoration of a number of these imperfect human beings may be worth the problem of evil in God’s estimation. Feinberg (1994: 131). I reason that as human nature has already demonstrated that it can fall, in the restoration it will need not only culminated perfect nature through resurrection, but also the influence of the Holy Spirit in heavy measure. Citizens will be filled with the Holy Spirit as was Stephen in Acts Chapter 6, for example. The New American Standard Version Bible Version (1984: 1234-1235). As God has developed saved persons to freely follow him with his guidance, I do not see why this would change within the everlasting realm. 

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

THE NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE (1984) Iowa Falls, Iowa, World Bible Publishers.

Watered-down religion?

Watered-down religion?

This book review continues...

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

Chapter 9: An ideology of violent conquests

Mr. Wallace opines that Islam is more so an ideology than it is a religion.(71). He reasons that Islam is a man-made worldview that presents itself as a religion. (71).


As I noted in a previous entry of review:

Mr. Wallace reasons that the best English source for learning about Islam is not the Qu'ran, nor it is the Sunnah. (58). The author suggests a classic text on Islamic law titled Reliance of the Traveller (ROT). (58) This text, according to Mr. Wallace will state an Islamic law, provide an interpretation, and then provide a source (s) from the Qu'ran and/or the Sunnah. (58).

From ROT O9.0: Mr. Wallace provides a definition of Jihad which defines it as war against non-Muslims.(71). The word is etymologically derived from the word mujahada which means signifying warfare to establish religion. (71). This is considered the lesser Jihad, as the greater Jihad is the war against self. (71).

Cited from (RoT) (Not from the Wallace text):

09.0 JIHAD (0: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad, "We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad."

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as:

(1) "Fighting is prescribed for you" (Koran 2:216);

(2) "Slay them wherever you find them" (Koran 4:89);

(3) "Fight the idolators utterly" (Koran 9:36);

and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

"I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah";

and the hadith reported by Muslim, "To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it." Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of

0.9.1

the ones he personally attended, some twentyseven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of UhuJ. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight. himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.) (599-600).

End citation

Reliance of the Traveller, (1991) Amana Publications, Beltsville, Maryland. The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law 'Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1368) in Arabic with Facing English Text, Commentary, and Appendices Edited and Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller.

Mr. Wallace reasons that Islamic instructions in regard to Jihad is consistent with the Qur'an and with the teachings of Muhammad (Sunnah). (73). The law in regard to Jihad would still be applicable for modern-day Muslims within Islam. (73).

Based on Islamic scriptural evidence, it could be reasoned that modern liberalized Islamic scholars and teachers have softened the original meaning of Jihad (and other doctrines as well) to make it more palatable in Western and non-Islamic contexts.

Mr. Wallace writes that Islamic texts expose this worldview as militant ideology. (76). I reason that this is true. The more peaceful face of Islam that is usually presented in modern non-Islamic cultures, and in the Western world, is that of a watered-down version in order to be more acceptable within non-Islamic societies.

To be clear, I am not reasoning, based on Mr. Wallace texts and the Qu'ran, Sunnah and ROT, that most people in Islam, or even most leaders and scholars in Islam, are intentionally dishonest, secretly holding to more conservative views on Jihad with some type of sinister intent. Rather, I reason that many modern Muslims hold to a more liberal version of Islam, a less literally interpreted, version of Islam, than was originally intended by the writers of Islamic scripture.

There is a similarity in how in some cases, modern Christianity is watered-down from the more literal contextual Scriptural version (degrees of literalness). But that is another subject and this entry is long enough and I have other work to do...