Biblical Translation--Eden

To Autunman. I think I am starting to see what you are saying, I dont completly agree but maybe we are coning closer to a understanding for further discussion. Jay will has responded to most of what you have said to me and I will respond to it as well but for now I want to ask you some direct questions. By the way Jaywell thank you again. First let me say that both of you are very intelligent fellas, but Autunman man I think it may be time for you to give up debating scripture with Jaywill. I dont know what your beliefs are specifically but your knowledge of the scriptures seems to be strong in the Old, not so strong in the NT.Any who. Here are my direct questions and I ask these knowing that you are not required to answer them. I do this that we might get closer to a understanding for discussion.If you believe in God. What and who is he to you?Do you believe God intervens in the affairs of men.Do you believe the the Old or NTs are the word of God?If you dont, what is the value of discussing thier content?Maybe this will bring us closer together in our understanding of the issue. Feel free to ask me any questions you wish that are related.D Bertot

Let me be blunt here. SEMANTICS, PATATO/PATAAAATO. Essentially you are saying the samething. In my view they most certainly are. Bear this in mind, we are not saying you can prove, the events in the NT anymore than any other event in human past history. What we are saying is that they are reliable and believable because of the ACCURATE HISTORICAL evidence that accompanies them, coupled with the fact that no discovery has discredited them at present. This is a powerful attestation to the probability of providence. Understand.Viewing your doctrinal discussions with Jaywill, I would say you case is against the will of God. I have already explained my reasons for not dueling scriptures with you. Maybe the questions I asked will help demonstrate this point. You have already said it was NOT IMPOSSIBLE in many other places. You said it is quite possible. The scholarship of the world says it is. Wrong, you can further believe it based on the evidence that support the Word of God, in other words it cooborates and lends support to it for a stronger more believable faith. You are only viewing Faith from one aspect., it is also 'the EVIDENCE of things not seen." Get it.Romans 1:20 says, "so that they are without excuse", for not believing in God, that is. The physical evidence supports his existence, even though we cannot see him or absolutley prove his exsitence. God has left enough evidence to demonstrate the same for the scritures.Like Jaywill said why would they be maticulous about historical events then fabricate everything else. Think about it Autunman.D Bertot

Autunmman,Maybe my answer will not be too short this time.First I may be getting in the way of your other discussion with bertot so I will let you and he discuss these points.As far as I can see Matthew 27:29 records the mocking of the heathen soldiers not the sentiments of the Saducees: This was the Roman soldiers expressing their utter contempt for the supposed "hope" of their subjugated Jew population. From which religious sect they got information of the Jewish hope of a Messianic King I am not sure.There are four gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. You know that. Each of the four wants to emphasize each of four characteristicd about this wonderful Person Jesus Christ. There is much overlap. However there is also particular flavors to each gospel respectively.Matthew contains a geneolgy of Jesus going back to Abraham and does stress that Jesus is that Davidic Messiah King of Israel, quite legitimately.Mark contains no geneology of Jesus. Of course Jesus is still the Messianic King there also. However, Mark seems to stress that He came as a Servant, as a Slave to labor on man's behalf. A slave does not need a geneology.Here we can see that a King and a Slave are opposites in status. Matthew and Mark therefore contrast Christ's great authority as a King with His service as a Slave of God and Man humbly to serve us.Luke no doubt records that the Son of the Most High is the son of David. See the geneology. But Luke wants to emphasize the humanity of Jesus. So Luke's geneology traces Jesus back to the first man created Adam. Luke wants us to be impressed that this Jesus was a normal man. He was normal yet with the highest standard of morality of any human man who has ever lived.Lastely we come to the Gospel of John. John wants us to be impressed that this Jesus is God Himself. To speak of a geneology for God is a joke. God always was from eternity. In the beginning the Word was God. And the Word became flesh.Here we see a contrast between Luke and John. Luke stresses that this Jesus was a man like Adam the first man created. And John takes the same Jesus and emphasizes that He is God from eternity incarnated.So the four Gospels are like four portraits of one face from four different angles.Jesus is the royal Messianic King of the Jews in Matthew.
Jesus is the Slave of God to serve God and man in Mark.
Jesus is the normal Man with the highest human morality in Luke.
Jesus is God Himself from eternity clothed in flesh in John.He is all these things. It takes at least four biographies to express the many faceted angles of His Person.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Autumnman,Back a number of pages you wrote: When you get to point that you have some time, and if you want to, we can take up this matter.I think I will not interfere with your discussion on NT textual critical matters with bertot.But if you want, I'll take up with you this difficult matter of God's judgment of the Canaanites.I will try to present to you that as a Christian, I am so thankful that this history is in the Old Testament. I am no longer embaressed by it. Though in the past had I written the OT I would have wanted to omit it. Thankfully God didn't consult with me on that.In fact it is really needed to make some very imortant points.Possibly then we'll talk latter if you wish to.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Jaywill please do not think you are interfering at all, I am sure we would both welcome your comments. I was serious when I said thank you for answering some of those responses.D Bertot

To Autunman. Thanks for these and other admissions in earlier post. Recently in the most previous post you acknowledge the historical reality of such figures as Paul, Peter,John and Luke and agree that we can have SOME MEASURE OF CONFIDENCE in thier exsistence and other related items apart from the miracles. I must admit I did not expect even that much of an admission, we may be closer in understanding than I or you think.It is starting to look as though our only difference would be the miracles themself. With that in mind, may I be permitted to ask what it is specifically that causes you to view these characters as Paul and Luke as real. Further since Luke was an accurate historian in the tradition of Joephus and Philo and both of them are repleat with religiousty, if you will, and speak of the Old Testament, Moses and miracles, etc, would you accept thier testimony without treating Luke and the Gospel writers in the same vain.In a previous post I demonstrated my point about the amount of evidence left by God in the scriptures, from a passage in Romans 1:20, implying that atleast he God believes that he has done this very thing. Now let me approach it from not only an authoritative standpoint, but a practical and logical one as well. At this point I certainly do not want to incite or anger any of my Mormon friends at this point, only to draw a illustration and comparison to each of the works of literature. The book of Mormon claims to be an account of a tribe or tribes of Israel on the continent of North and South America many years ago, repleat with names, peoples , specific location and so forth. The obvious problem however, is that it cannot even get out of the starting gate with respect to historicity and archeological support, that can be cooroborated by any independent professionals in those fields today outside of the LDS church itself. There are a few obscure references to Cumra(if I am spelling or saying that correct) and some relation to Quazequetal,offered by these apologists, to no real effect, . In other words, not a single item in its record can be dug up out of of the earth or found in history.Now this is what distinguishes the NT from a work of fables verses a work of history supported by actual eyewitness that participated in those events.This is a bit of a strech, but I think when you view the evidence at hand, you know down deep in the recesses of you mind that you have the confidence about those literal characters in the NT, because there is much supporting information in and out of the scriptures.I know you are busy, but if you get a minute could you explain what you mean by MEASURE OF CONFIDENCE, keeping in mind that Luke and the others employed the same measure of historiical relating that did Josephus and Philo, remembering that these two both had very specific religous view and supernatural beliefs. Would this disqualify them as well. I know I have hit you with a bunch of posts so please take your time.ThanksD Bertot

jaywill: I would very much enjoy taling to you {and bertot} regarding God's judgment of the Canaanites, as well as may other issues regarding the biblical Scriptures.You are correct in understanding that you and bertot keep my metaphorical plate rather full, but you are always welcome to remain in the current discussion. I have found that your unique perspective {whether I agree or disagree} is not only heart-felt, but also quite insightful regarding a Christian exposition of Scripture. In short, I greatly value your participation.Stay with us, please.Thank you,
Ger

bertot: Here are my answers to your four questions. Being a human being I am confined by human language to describe my relationship with the Mystery and Majesty of “God”.
I do not “believe in God.” Literally and figuratively, with every mortal breath I take I experience the rucha=breath/spirit of >elohiym=God. I do not live by that which has been or is baked by other human beings or myself = I do not live by bread alone, but by every breath that proceeds from the metaphorical “mouth” of God.What and Who is God to me? Once again being confined by human language I will attempt to reply: >elohiym=God = >eheyeh >asher >eheyeh=I am that which I am, and from a human perspective yhwh=He becomes/is: The Tetragrammaton=The Name of the mystic number four, symbolizing >elohiym=God. There are no “affairs of men” without the intervention of >elohiym=God. No. The OT and the NT are in fact the “words of men.” They are the metaphorical “bread” which is baked by other human beings. From my point of view, the words of men must always be subjected to the “facts” - “the reality” - that God has provided. God is and creates life, man cannot create life or the reality which God and life creates. The value of the OT and the NT is identical to learning the “A, B, Cs” = >aleph, beyth, giymel. The writing systems of our ancient ancestors eventually gave rise to my native English language. The writings of our ancient ancestors eventually gave rise to my native Christian Religion. I literally could not form individual thoughts without my native language and native religion. Without God and our ancient ancestors we would literally not exist. By exploring and learning from the Scriptures, I become more aware of who and what I am, and this in tern enables me to more fully comprehend the Majesty and Mystery of >eheyeh=I Am = yhwh >elohiym. I hope the above answers to your questions are sufficient. If they are not, please let me know and I will attempt to elaborate.Regards,
Ger

To bertot and jaywill: I have indeed thought about this question.I will attempt to explain:That which is “fictitious” - that is only created by man - has no “real” foundation. Therefore, “the ancient fictitious” must somehow be established. Historical events that are corroborated by a number of independent sources would in fact have to be the only foundation for “the ancient fictitious”.A fabrication of history can be, and quite often has been said to be “consistent with what facts are available.” Did Pontius Pilate actually order the killing of all the two year old and younger children in Bethlehem and the coasts thereof? The event is only recorded in Matthew 2:16, however, as Eerdmans’ Handbook to the Bible puts it, “The massacre is in keeping with other cruelties mentioned in historical records” (pg. 476). Does that make “the massacre” a historically corroborated fact? No! However, that particular “massacre” is NOT mentioned in historical records. This fact does not disprove “the massacre”, but it does cast considerable doubt on the historical nature of “the massacre.”Note also that Eerdmans’ Handbook to the Bible states, “mentioned in historical records,” implying that the Gospel of Matthew is not being here referred to as a “historical record”. If the Gospel of Matthew was being referred to as a “historical record” Eerdmans’ Handbook to the Bible would have said - in other historical records.The reasons for authors to employ supernatural events:Real, actual, true events that are either experienced or recorded do not require a person to engage in a “belief” or “faith”. Such events are in fact “self-evident.” When someone says, “Not upon the bread it alone he lives, the human species, for upon all motza> =that issues from the mouth of yhwh he lives, the human species” (interpres translated fr. BHS Deut. 8:3), such a statement can be construed as a “self-evident fact.” Even if one does not adopt the Heb. Deity yhwh, but does conclude that Deity is referring to the Mystery and Majesty of all reality, the above statement describes an absolute fact of mortal existence on planet earth. Therefore, “belief” and/or “faith” is not required.Supernatural events that are only describe by other human beings, on the other hand, require considerable “belief” and/or “faith”. If one personally experiences a supernatural event, for the person who experiences it, the event is no longer “beyond the natural” but has in fact become an aspect of the individual’s natural experience. However, to all other human beings who have not experienced that particular supernatural event, or perhaps any supernatural event, the only way they can embrace what the other person claims he had experienced is through “belief” and/or “faith” in the person making the claim, for the supernatural event itself is not consistent with any natural human experience.By and large, “belief” and/or “faith” do not empower those who have faith alone in what some other human being(s) espouses. The individual or individuals espousing that, which must be taken on “faith alone” are those who are in fact empowered. Therefore, “power” being exercised over others is the sole purpose for someone or anyone to espouse that, which is NOT self-evident. The claims of supernatural events are identical to that, which is “fictitious” in that both have only human words as their source and neither has an established foundation in fact, reality, and the real and true state of existence on planet earth. In order for “supernatural events” and/or “the fictitious” to have any credibility at all they must be attached in some way to either real events or historically corroborated events. When linked to a sense of reality in this way those who espouse “the supernatural” and “the fictitious” are able to establish a “seat of power” in the minds of their believers and the faithful. It is the establishment of that “seat of power” that drives human beings to intertwine “the supernatural” and “the fictitious” with either real events or historically corroborated events.And it works. For God and country we set out to kill other human beings. I have done this. It works. United States soldiers are killing and being killed at this moment. It works.

bertot: You state: I do not trust anything I read, nor do I trust anything I read regarding history. To begin with, those who have won or come out on top are those who write the history books. There is generally another side to the story; those who have lost or have come out on bottom. Furthermore, all human beings tend to have a personal history, a bias, and generally chroniclers of human events, as well as scholars who expound upon what chroniclers have composed are influenced by their personal history and personal bias.I look at what has been written by various human beings as being maps, and either those maps lead me in some way to a real and true territory that has been created by God, or those maps lead me deeper and deeper into the dark recesses of the human mind. The imagination of the human mind can perform awesome tasks, but those tasks must conform to the real and true territory created by God.All human words, including my own, should be viewed, examinined, and scrutinized thoroughly before lending them credence, and "a measure of confidence". To me, there is no such thing as "complete confidence."Regards,
Ger

To Autumnman Thanks for your responses to my questions, you notice I said responses, not direct answers. Example, in the above disscription, it appears that you both accept and do not accept the existence of God at the same time, I say his in the kindest way it makes no rational sense. And please tell me what the metaphorical "mouth" of God is. Is this God in the above discription a real personality, living and actual or your concept of what a God may be derived from alot of words that you do not consider to be from God's word anyway, the OT. Is God real or not, a simple yes or no will suffice, without all the rehtoric and double talk.I simply wanted you to know that I was still here, so I will get to the rest of the questions and your other post in the morning. Give me a chance to respond to the rest before you hit me with more.D Bertot

I think he must be refering to Herod rather than Pontius Pilate.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The honest historian must be opened to the possibility of unique and particular events. They may be unusual. They may have been highly unusual or even miraculous. It is the evidence and testimonhy that must be carefully examined. It is a mistake to import uniformitarian methods of scientific experimentation into historical research.The historial is not trying to lay down laws of behavior based on uniformity. Unlike the scientist the historian is not trying to establish general, repeatable patterns as laws. The historian cannot discount testimony of the unusual no matter how reliable it is on some general principle that things just don't happen that way today.The historian should not state "Men do not rise from the dead. Therefore we will accept no testimony and no evidence no matter how conclusive that Christ rose from the dead." That would be a definition of hisorical events which a prior excludes the possibility of a non-repeatable and highly unusual event. It begs the questions. It is an attitude that methodologically assures a naturalistic interpretation to all history.The testimony for regularity in general ("men do not rise from the dead") is in no way a testimony against an unusual event in particular. It is not sound to establish a prior a criteria which will automatically not accept that which contradicts the uniform testimony of how nature usually works.Good eyewitness accounts of a particular case of an event that did not conform to the uniform behavior of nature should not be rejected out of hand by the historian. I suspect that some want to define history in such a way that acts of God are automatically excluded.This methodology of defining what is real history will do more than exclude the consideration of a well attested to miracle. It will also exclude highly unusual events that are improbable.Norm Giesler argues in the chapter on Objectivism and History in his book Christian Apologetics In science generality and repeatability are needed to establish laws and patterns. In history credibility of testimony for possible one time events is what must be examined. And that so even if the events are highly unusual and, yes, even miraculous.If there is a God, then the universe is not a totally closed system. Outside of it is One who created it yet transcends it. Having created it out of nothing He surely has to authority and the ability to extend His activity into this opened system to overule the uniform laws of the way nature usually works, if God so desires on a particular occasion to do so.I have to take the possibility of Divine miracles seriously because the existence of the universe out of nothing by creation of God is a miracle. For all intents and purposes a secular Big Bang Theory is virtually a miracle because no one can explain where the Banging material came from in the first place.The existence of life itself also may be a miracle. The universe is overwhelmingly hostile to the existence of life as we know it. It appearance in a thin sliver of just right and seemingly fine tuned environment arguably at least testify to the miraculous.At least no one has been able to demonstrate the emergence of life from non-life. For me, the existence of the universe and the presence of life make it impossible for me to a prior exclude the possbility of miraculous event in history.Any definition of history stated so as to methodically exclude the possibility of a historical divine miracle is question begging. It is jury rigging the definitio of history so as to ensure only naturalistic and uniform events will be considered no matter how powerfully evidenced a non-repeatable and unusual supernatural event is reported.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

jaywill: You are quite right, I meant to write Herod Antipas. I had a couple books open to both historical characters, and glanced at the wrong book.I had one thing in mind and typed another.Thanks for setting the record straight.Regards,
Ger

Do you believe God intervens in the affairs of men. D Bertot If then it is possible, what would be the identifying marks of such action. What are the Facts and reality God has provided to us that you mention here. And where can these be found, if not in the scriptures? Fair enough. I should have wrote the question to read, Why try and show contradiction between the Old and NT, if it is not the word of God. Further is there any source outside of the scriptures that you learn of the I Am. For example you speak of the existence of God as the I Am, but you only seem to be using the scriptures for this personal belief in God, almost acknowledging and disavowing the scriptures as the word of God at the same time and in the same breath. This doesnt seem to make much sense.Let me add this point as well. James D Bales, professor of Bible and Christian apologetics at Harding University was once engaged in a debate with another fellow who was versed in the use of logic, syllogism and so forth. Dr. Bales percieving that the audience was not understanding what he was saying, admonished the other fellow, that he was sure everybody there knew what a corn pone was but was not sure that everybody knew what a Modous Poneus was and asked hin to speak in term everyone could understand. I am not a Hebraist, so if you are going to speak and use these terms, explain what your meaning is from those words. In other words, provide a simple readable explanation from those term. Dumb it down for us simpleton kuckleheads.Thanks
D Bertot