I see you! No you don’t!

Ex 33:20“Thou canst not see my face, for there shall be no man see me and live.” AND John 6:46“Not that any man hath seen the Father.” Jesus is speaking. BUT THEN Ex 33:11“The Lord spake unto Moses face to face.” And Jacob claimed, “For I have seen God face to face & my life is preserved.” Gen 32:30. AND DON’T FORGET Deut 34:10“And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.”

Advertisements

4 Responses to “I see you! No you don’t!”

  1. I’m loving the inconsistencies, I hope you’ve looked through the Skeptics Annotated Bible: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ which follows the same lines and tries to find every possible error and puts them in the “margins.”

  2. Took a lot of time researching this for you, so here we go:

    {{{ Moses did not see God’s face, the use of “face to face” was to put it into human terms. Joshua who also was there but he never left the tent but remained inside while Moses went out to talk with the LORD to be in His presence, but did not look into His face.

    For God when he passed by Moses covered Moses’ face so he would not die.
    Ex 33:23 “Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.”(NASB) }}}

    Any other references by Moses to see God were to see His Glory, not face (Exodus 34:18, for example).

    Also, “A general answer often given is that these verses indicate that God cannot be seen by men when in his full glory. God can be seen when in lesser form – as in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, or a theophany. These lesser forms are indicated, although their nature probably not fully understood by all of the writers, in Exod. 24:9,10, Amos 9:1, Gen. 26:2 and 32:30, John 14:9, and Ex. 33:11.”

    You may want to take a look at http://www.tektonics.org/uz/visiblegod.html as well.

    In summary (or for a quick glance): “Face to face,” was an expression used back then similar to cultural “slang” we have today (“Sup dog,” “What’s up,” etc). The issues arise on the surface, but when you take a look at the terminology and linguistics, it is okay.

    Take some time to read the link and have fun!

    ~~mike

  3. doubtingthomas426 Says:

    Hi, Mike, thanks so much for taking the time to comment. I truly appreciate a well thought out, researched response. I also appreciate your moderate tone. So many of the religionists seem to simply try to throw punches with their words. It is completely counterproductive. And thanks for the great link. I hope everyone who reviews this post will follow the link. However, I find it strange that only ONE of the passages I reference is mentioned on the site. And my main problem with your explanation and the ones stated on the link is that both appear to have simply searched for a version/interpretation of the bible that supported your/their explanation. This is a common tactic with the faithful. Understand I’m not accusing you of anything, I just have trouble taking any religion seriously that has a hundred different interpretations of their holy text. I hope you will continue to review the other posts on my site. I look forward to your comments.

    Take Care.

  4. I understand where you come from when you say “[you] have trouble taking any religion seriously that has a hundred different interpretations of their holy text,” but you must understand – and I believe CS Lewis put it best (I’ll try and find the quote once I get home for you), that you must think of different versions of the Bible as evolving with the language and vernacular of the time. And, as with anything, Bible printing is a business, so each company (Zondervan, etc) will try and print a new and “understandable,” version of the Bible for the masses. However, the texts through which they are based (usually the original documents [or something very close to them]) are the same throughout – and, therefore, the same underlying meaning or message using different conjugations of the word. It may seem like inconsistencies are rampant throughout the Bible (and yes, the site and source I linked did only give one reference to the verse in Exodus is only mentioned once, but I’ll read through my books and try and find you something), but overall it is miscommunication or misunderstanding that usually results in skeptics or atheists to come to conclusions such as a fallacy found within the Bible. That was the point I was trying to get across through my last comment. The original texts are very clear in what the words mean (to the few that can read and understand them, which is a problem in it of itself that so few can only read them). If there are any apparent inconsistencies, it is on the publisher and the interpreter, not the original texts or meaning of the words. The people make the interpretations, the text remains the same – let the Bible speak to you, not the interpreter. I’m an encourager of people actually buckling down and learning the original languages (if they have time, hah!) so they have a direct idea from the direct-source-documents, not some nuts convoluted interpretations (not saying that Bible interpreters are nuts, but there are quite some knuckleheads out there).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: