Biblical Translation--Eden

So, are you saying that the discussion is at an impasse? That there is no further basis for (re)consideration of any stance other than to conclude that "the strictest form of creationism" is the only choice? (And what does that entail?)And the basis for this impasse, the reason why further consideration is futile, is simply that the Bible says exactly this:... -- have I understood you correctly?You seem to be making your statements in a manner that asserts you cannot be mistaken, that your particular translations for the specific Hebrew morphemes and phrasal constructions are beyond dispute, and perfectly inerrant. And by extension, your views would seem, potentially, to contradict a lot of observed physical fact.If I have misunderstood you, I apologize, but I hope you can understand the cause of my confusion.If I have paraphrased your intent correctly, I assume you understand that the vast majority of the world will not agree with you, and despite what you might believe, there is no good (factual, objective, rational) reason for them to change their minds. Indeed, the world itself (even granting that it's God's creation) offers a lot of evidence to refute creationism, if you are using that word to mean what most people mean by it. So I'm really puzzled by your statements.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

quote:

---

So, you're talking about the concept of a "checksum" (just like what is used when transferring binary data between computers or other digital devices)... Were the number sums written down at the end of each line? each page? Were they on the same page with the text, or on a separate page? (I'm assuming they could not have been committed to memory.) Was it a "base-10" numeric system? (I don't think anyone had invented the zero yet.)

---

The alphabets are also numerals. First alphabet, alef = 1; beth = 2; the 10th alphabet = 10; the 11th alphabet = 100; etc. This is how the cencus totalling 3 million Hebrews was conducted, with sub-totals of tribes, gender and ages, then with verification sum totals - this it is a scientific cencus. So all the writings of the 5 books have a correct, established quotient. If there is a variance, it has to be corrected before getting a release pass, namely a clean [kosher] certificate.I believe the greeks seperated numerals and vowels from the alphabets when the Septuagint was made, and they also introduced intelligent verse and passage indexing systems seen today. the greeks themselves admit to adapting their alphabetical writings from the hebrew, and so does the Josephus documents. There are no greek alphabetic books prior to the Hebrew translation, but they can be credited with expanding and educating the world.

I am not intending being dogmatic or over confident, but my statements represent what I have learnt of the issue, and can be corrected. The issue of ex nehilo, which has become trendy in recent years, is not seen before the OT writings. Even the later kabalah writings is based on ex nehilo. Please feel free to show an earlier example of ex nehilo than that of the hebrew writings - this will impact.Further, I don't see why it is surprising this would be introduced via the OT, which contains a host of introductions and firsts, including the first alphabetical books, creationism, monotheism, evolution, democrasy, liberty and inalienable human rights. Its a most ancient of writings. It should not be surprising that ex nehilo could only come from genesis, which posits a creation with a creator, and uses the term, AND IT WAS SO - this means it was commanded, and it occured, with no tools and products at hand, when the universal elements were still not yet created. The word 'bara' = creation from nothing; form = creation from something else; thus the former is not repeated outside of ch. 1 - when all creation is said to have ceased or completed.We learn from this also, that all the contents of the universe, past and future, were created at one instant in potential form, and actualised later, in their due times. Humans cannot create - a song written/sung in 500 years from now aleready exists now; humans can form that song - by making something new from something else already existing. This is a form of creation, but varied from the 'bara' of chapter 1, which is a technical creation, and varied from the word create we use in everyday expressionism.Logically and scientifically, Genesis is correct: it posits the universe as finite, which means all the universe components are also finite. This means, there were no pre-universe tools or products - else the finite premise becomes violated. Thus there is no alternative to genesis. I say so via its reasoning, not as an absolute. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Hi autumnman, This is a literal translation of Genesis 2:16 and 2:17.The existing one Elohim gave orders man say tree garden eat Tree knowledge good evil eat day eat dieGod Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Elokin and Jeohova are attached names after the advent of humans - throughout the OT. This is to say the laws of nature have the same source as the laws to mankind. The reading these are not the same, contradicts almost everything in the OT narratives. It is not a sound proposition at all.It is wholly logical the source be the same. The names are descriptive and 'events' related, as opposed to Pronouns; all sectors of the OT are contextual, and not chronological - the correct grammatical method - the understanding of the texts are first and foremost fron its contextual quality - the function of chronology becomes relevent only from a retrospective, historical or scientific view - and these have to include interaction of the texts in all sectors.When humans emerged, and there is the first dialogue, the name becomes personal - because humans, unlike all other life forms and inorganic elements - are contructed to interact with a personal faculty. The chapter which initiates the two names as attached, also form as a continuation of all terms used in the previous chatpers, refering to them when any extensions are listed.

Hi IAJ,What has any of your post to do with what I said about Genesis 2:16 and Genesis 2:17?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

It will take me a while to reply to the many posts above. There is a great deal I want to say and that I feel needs to be said.I will start at the posts on pg. #1 and go from there. I have some chores to do around the ranch, but I want to and will reply to everyone.I thank you all for taking such an interest in this thread.Regards;
Ger

Otto Tellick: In some ways you seemed to comprehend, but you appear to have misconstrued much of it.The Canaanite dilect Paleo-Hebrew has been a dead language {spoken and written mediums} since the Exile in 586 BCE. Both Paleo-Hebrew and Western-Aramaic New Hebrew were written without vocalization - vowel points - until the Masoretic Heb. Text was composed beginning in the sixth century CE {a.k.a. AD). The Heb. Scholar who composes commentary for the Jewish Publication Society, Professor Nahum M. Sarna states:

quote:

---

"For nearly two millennia and a half, the exposition of Scripture has been the subject of intese preoccupation on the part of Jewish scholars. In fact, Jewish intellectual and spiritual history may be said to be essentially the record of the variegated attempts to unfold the sense, meanings, purposes, intents, and applications of the biblical texts" (JPS Torah Commentary, Genesis, Introduction, The Commentary, pg.#xvii).

---

Since the fall of Judea to the Babylonians not even Jewish scholars who speak Modern Hebrew fluently know for certain or can completely agree upon what the ancient Heb. Tanakh {Old Testament} is actually conveying. Only Christians seem to think they know for certain.The source text used by a vast majority of Heb. scholars is the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS)which is based upon the Masoretic Text that contains vocalization marks and vowel points. However, the consonantal Heb. Text remains as the foundation of the Masoretic Text.Bruce M. Metzger, for the Committee that rendered the New Revised Standard Version Bible (NRSV) states:

quote:

---

"The vowel signs, which were added by the Masoretes, are accepted in the main, but where a more probable and convincing reading can be obtained by assuming different vowels, this has been done ... because the vowel points are less ancient and reliable than the consonants" (pg. iv).

---

It is my opinion that the only way to actually learn what the Heb. Eden Narrative is conveying is to "interpres" translate the Consonantal Heb. Text. Once the Heb. Text has been "interpres" translated then an interpretaion/"exposition" of the Source Text can be formulated, debated, and discussed.See my example regarding Gen. 2:16 & 17; the Heb. verb which begins Gen. 2:16 is "tz v h=lay charge, command". The English auxilary verb "may" is completely incongruent with "a command".I hope I have assisted you;
Ger

IamJoseph: You state Your theological bias comes through loud and clear.If you would like to have a discussion, a debate, then you may want to realize the "preaching" will not accommodate a dialogue.The Consonantal Heb. Text of the First Creation Account does not support your assertion at all. Regarding Biblical Heb. Translation I refer you to "post #23." Perhaps what is conveyed in that "post" will assist you in opening your eyes a little.Furthermore, you state: In one sense your statement is true, bara> does appear in the first creation "chapter." However, the Second Creation Account that begins in Gen. 2:4 employs the term bara> in the verbal clause "b h b r > m=in their being created"; With vowels; behibare>am=when they were created". Both of these translations would be regarded as "interpres."Regards;
Ger

IamJoseph: You state: You have apparently not done your homework.In the Brenton Septuagint, Introduction, it states:

quote:

---

"One of the earliest of those writers who mention the Greek translation of the Scriptures, speaks also of the version as not fully adequate. The Prologue of Jesus the son of Sirach (written as many suppose B.C. 130) to his Greek version of his grandfather's work, states: 'For the same things expressed in Hebrew have not an equal force when translated into another language. Not only so, but even the Law and the prophecies and the rest of the books differ not a little as to the things said in them'."

---

I might also add that the personal name "Adam" does not appear anywhere in the Hebrew Eden Narrative. The New Revised Standard Version Bible (NRSV) renders the Eden Text without ever employing the personal name "Adam." In Heb. grammar a personal name cannot take the definite article prefix. The definite article prefixed form "ha>adam=the human archetype" is employed in twenty of the twenty-four uses of that masculine noun in the Heb. Eden Narrative. This sets the context for the three instances where the masculine noun is prefixed by the preposition bound morpheme "l=to, for, at, regarding, in regard to, etc."; "la>adam=to/for the human archetype". In Gen. 2:5 the conjunction prefixed form, "ve>adam=and humanity/mankind" employing the masculine noun ">adam" in its most common application, "humanity/mankind." The Alexandrian Greek Septuagint predominately employs the personal name "Adam", thus indicating a quite lacking "expositor" translation of the Hebrew Text.You might try doing some unbiased research.Regards;
Ger

IamJoseph: You state: I will quote Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar:

quote:

---

"In default of special arithmetical figures, the consonants were used also as numerical signs. The earliest traces of this usage are, however, first found on the Maccabean coins from 140 and 139 B.C."(pg. 30).

---

There is no evidence that the Canaanite/Phoenician Paleo-Hebrew consonants were ever used in a numerical fashion.Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar also explains:

quote:

---

"The second period of the Hebrew language and literature, after the return from the exile until the maccabees (about 160 B.C.), is chiefly distinguished by a constantly closer approximation of the language to the kindred western Aramaic dialect" (pg. 16).
At the time when the old Hebrew language was gradually becoming extinct, and the formation of the O.T. canon was approaching completion [400 to 200 B.C.], the Jews began to explain and critically revise their sacred text, and sometimes to translate it into the vernacular languages which in various countries had become current among them" (pg. 17 & 18).

---

Much in ancient history has gone into and influenced the Hebrew Tanakh {Old Testament). Contrary to most Christian beliefs, the Hebrew Tanakh was not composed through divine intervention, or canonized by divine will. Our ancient ancestors, however, were more closely connected to reality than we are today, and learning what they had to say could be quite beneficial to us now.Regards;
Ger

ICANT: You wrote: That is not even close to being "a literal translation of Gen. 2:16 & 17."I truly hope you are kidding.Regards;
Ger

Hi autumnman, Genesis 1:1 In the beginning elohiym bara the heaven and the earth.
Geneses 2:4 These are the generations (course of history) of the heaven and the earth when they were bara in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heaven.Genesis 2:4 declares that it is the beginning of the course of history of the heaven and the earth when they were created (bara same as in Genesis 1:1)This history continues until Genesis 5:1 begins the history of the man created (bara) in Genesis 1:26-27.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi autumnman, Then why did you not give correct one.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

ICANT: You quote I will transliterate & translate into English the Hebrew version of Gen. 2:4, employing the transliteration convention of ">"= aleph and "0"=ayin.

quote:

---

2:4 >eleh=these toledot=human generations hashamiym=the heavens veha>aretz=and the earth behibare>am=in their being created beyom=in day 0aseot=he made yhwh >elohiym=God >eretz=earth veshamiym=and heavens

---

The feminine plural noun "toledot" is only used to describe human geneologies wherever it is used in the Heb. O.T. This feminine plural noun is never used to denote brute animal geneologies anywhere in the Heb. O.T. On this basis it appears as though the author is stating that Gen. 2:5 through 3:24 will be pertaining to the geneologies of "ha'>adam=the human species".I realize that such a conclusion is contrary to Christian beliefs, but there is much in the Heb. Eden Narrative that is contrary to Christian beliefs.Regards;
Ger