Biblical Translation--Eden

bertot: It might be best if we examine one question at a time.You wrote: Yes, God is real.I did not share with you "rhetoric and double talk." I am sad that you perceived it that way. I shared with you the most honest answer that I could provide at this point in time.I do not perceive God as being anthropomorphic. The Canaanites, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans anthropomorphized their supreme being and the lesser supernatural beings beneath him. I associate no human-like characteristics or perceived human personality to God.I will await your reply.Regards,
Ger

Let me restate what Jaywill said in other words. The reliability of Luke and the other Gospel writers has to be demonstrated to be inaccurate based on thier overall content. The history, archeological coorboration, and thier reliability must first be overthrown to demonstrate thier unreliability. Thier reliability has and can be established. One uncooroborated event does not make them totally unreliable, or even that event unreliable. Get the point.This is a strech and commentary on what Erdmans is saying. He most certainly did not mean to imply that Matt., was not historical as a document, this your indirect assumption. [qs]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”.[qs] This of course is to categorical a statement. If indeed we had a so-called fictitious event cooborated by several sources from a time long ago, it would make the event no more believable by people today. In other words, people would still reject it and call the stories of one or many people fabricated and ficticious, saying because we did not wittness those events, we cannot rely on even the testimony of several sources. See the point. I gave you the example of the book of Mormon, where several wittness say they can cooborate this information, but nothing of a present day documentary nature can support it., ie history and archeology. Further, Josephus and Philo cooroborate eachother in thier defense of Moses and several OT characters. Question. Does this make thier defense believable because there are two and not just one. Not to mention the fact that they are considered VALUED historians. See the point.You criteria for what constitues a historical source, document and event is contrived by you and is not totally acurate. Some of the above statement is true. Howeever, I have already established that there are other methods of establishing the reliability and credebility, other than the way you mention. Most of what you have stated above simply goes by the wayside, because it simply a repeat from other places. I understand its content, but it constitues nothing more tha an opinion. I agree and that is exacally what has taken place in the scriptures. Those events are attached to actual events that are attached to much cooborating evidence. This statement, while it may be accurate from some human standpoint does not apply to the nature of our discussion. It is biased and inappropriate in this context.Thanks
D Bertot

bertot:

quote:

---

There are no “affairs of men” without the intervention of >elohiym=God.

---

The identifying marks of God intervening in the affairs of men can be perceived all throughout human history. There would be no "human history" without God's continuous intervention. Mankind does not exist, is not sustained, by only that, which mankind creates. I think you are so accustomed to expecting spectacular events, that the spectacular event of mortality existing on planet earth within an infinite cosmos has become simply mundane to you. What part of "Facts and reality" do you not understand? Try looking for what God has provided in "Reality," as opposed to only "the scriptures." Use "Reality" and "the Scriptures" together. To me, "Iam that I am", means "God Is." Let's say that we are mortal human beings on planet earth on a mountain we regard as "desolation" and yet all around us "life" is burning in all things. The tamarisk-bush is in full blossom amidst the stifling heat of summer. God and what Is are one and the same. Without God there is not such thing as "cosmic nature" "earth nature" or "human nature."Who needs side-show miracles?Did I dumb it down for you?Regards,
Ger

bertot: It would really be helpful if you would read what I actually write. A portion of your reply, states: This is a portion of what you are replying to:

quote:

---

that particular “massacre” is NOT mentioned in historical records. This fact does not disprove “the massacre”,

---

Yes, I quoted Eerdmans, and I explained what I read. I gave you the quote and my understanding of it. What more can I do?I am enjoying myself talking to you and jaywill. However, a curt, "Get the point", or "Shame on you" is edging on being "rude." We are here to discuss our different views. My views are not "right" simply because they are mine, and your views are not "right" simply because they are yours. If we can, let's respectfully disagree with each others' views. What do you say?Regards,
Ger

Thank you for your answer. I did not mean to sound unkind. I think sometimes people want so much to impress with esoteric explantion they forget the point they are making. By real i assume you mean, rel personality as opposed to a force of nature or something.Niether do I consider God himself as anthropomorphic. The scritures simply describe him this way, so we can better understand him from our perspective., ie "the EYES of the lord are over all the righteouss and his EARS are open unto thier prayers......".Thankd D Bertot

Autunman I read carefully each one of your posts and read the portion, that you quoted to me. However, I might point out that in other parts of post you have made it very clear that in your view this event did not happen and that constitues the book of Matt as unreliable as witness to that event. Wheather you said this directly or indirectly at times this was your import. This is what I am responding to, not necessarily only the quote above. Yes I will stop the short curts as you call them, but if you review your record they are in yous as well., "see the point", etc. Not to mention the abbrasivenes and borderline ridicule in your sparing with Jaywill of his beliefs, concepts and ideas, before I entered the thread. But, ok, I apologize if I have hurt your feelings. Ill try and stick to the point.D bertot

bertot:I am sure we are all guilty of being unintentionally rude from time to time. When you perceive that I am being somewhat rude to anyone in my replies, please bring it to my attention.I am sure that the "heat" (if you will) of the moment sometimes gets the better of all of us.Thank you, my friend,
Ger

Autunman writes, If this answer is yes. Then how can men PERCIEVE this information all throughout history. What is it, how do we distinguish it from a simple act of chance or nature. Please explain.I think it might help you to know that I am a part of a Chruch (the Church of Christ), that does not believe that God infuses men today with the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. We believe that those gifts were for a certain time and purpose, to confirm the Messiahship of Christ and confirm the Words of the Apostles. 1 Cor 13. :"For we Know in part and we prophcie in part, but when that which is perfect is come ( the perfect complete word of God)then that which is part shall be done away, (the gifts of the spirit). Where there is Knowledge (miraculous knowledge) it shall vanish away, wheather there are miracles, they shall cease".So far from your assertion that I expect the spactacular, just the opposite is true. Again, what is this reality you speak of, do mean, simply existence itself. If so, then what you are saying is that there is no DIRECT or SPECIFIC revelation from God, correct. Did I get it right that time?God intervens without anybody really knowing it or he never reveals himself to them in any real way. Pretty much, but you seem to still be evasive about any specifics.Thanks
D Bertot

I understand. I have been doing this for so long, I dont even pay attention to the verbal abusiveness and abrasiveness, I just expect it as a part of the process. Sorry for my clunky and straight forward approach. I am much more accustomed to one on one verbal confrontations and discussions. This typing stuff wears me out.Thanks again,D Bertot

bertot: You wrote above, "a simple act of chance or nature," as well as "simply existence itself."Gen. Chapter 1 describes our reality coming into being. I perceive Gen. Chapter 1 as being a metaphorical account of how God created the heavens and the earth and all the hosts thereof. Perhaps you perceive Gen. Chapter 1 as being a literal account of how God created the heavens and the earth and all the hosts thereof. How we personally perceive this ancient Hebrew Scripture is less important than us acknowledging what this ancient Hebrew Scripture conveys:Out of nonexistence came mortal existence and all the hosts thereof. And this mortal existence is in fact the objective reality we are all a part of and we all share.In the Gen. Chapter 1 - 2:1 "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them" (KJV), apears to describe the heavens and the earth that the author of the Scripture was part of, and that you and I are a part of today. In Gen. 1:31 the author states, "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was/is very good" (KJV).I realize that a subjective view of reality - the heavens and the earth, and the host of them - may well perceive every thing that God has made as not necessarily being so "good", but an objective view of reality - mortal existence somehow emerging from nonexistence - is not only "very good" but absolutely amazing. There is nothing mundane about a reality perceived in this fashion.Furthermore, if indeed linguists are correct in their scientific assertions that Gen. 1 - 2:3 was composed hundreds of years after Gen. 2:4 - 3:24, then the author of the "In The Beginning" creation account was perceiving mortal existence at the time of composing his text as being "very good".My personal and objective view of mortal reality is that it is in fact created by God and that it is not only "very good" but is in fact amazing.This view does in fact conflict with other aspects of Genesis as well as the rest of the OT and NT. However, I did not write the Gen. Chapter 1 creation account. I am merely reading it, translating it, contemplating it. Prior to canonization, the Gen. Chapter 1 creation account was a separate document; a narrative unto itself. Certain men who came along later canonized the OT, and other men canonized the NT.Did I explain what "reality" means to me. God did not write the Gen. Chapter 1 creation account, but the Gen. Chapter 1 creation account was composed by a real human being who was in fact contemplating God's real creation. To me that is a "direct" and "specific" revelation of God from God. To you it probably is not.Two different human beings attempting to communicate is not an easy or cut and dry process.Regards,
Ger

You aint just whistling dixie Homie. I think I am now understanding your position. You believe in God, literally and personally but dont believe the OT or NT are given by or from him. You believe these are mans expressions about God and God doesnt really care how man percieves him in reality. Further, if I am correct here, you see the OLd Testament as the the best possible literature out there to describe, someone who is otherwise indescribable. correct?Having been doing this debating thing for a number of years now, this is why i think it is absolutley necessary to understand what people believe and thier positions they hold. You can avoid a whole lot of misconception in terminology, concepts and presuppositions. No not really, but it is so subjective a view it is really unarguable. Everyone is intitled to thier opinions.So you are saying you are a Deist, you dont believe there is any specfic direct revelation from God correct. Also, for you the Bible does not bear those marks of destinction and Divinitys hand. The book of Genisis is just another Myth no matter how beautiful the words, concepts or ideas, correct. The curt "correct" doesnt offend you does it, Juuuust kidding.D Bertot

In my last post I forgot to add this point, I wanted make. Besides respecting the anctient languages you seem to believe and almost worship the description of God in the above words and in other posts. Question are there any other writings of a religous nature that you have this much respect for, others that you study with this much adoration.When I first started reading your posts with Jaywill, I noticed you had a great knowledge or what appears to be a great knowledge of the actual ancient words and concepts. But then I started to notice there seemed to be a lack of total overall doctrinal knowledge, this is what sparked me to respond with the questions for clairfication. Kind of like gun slinger calling you out to tell me exacally what you believed. Just a few questions and comments here, Ill wait for your reply. Also I am not asking these randomly but as a platform to get back to the original text quesion.Thanks
D Bertot

bertot: Your replied, I do not know what God cares or does not care about.However, for many thousands of years, prior to and after the biblical canon was created human beings have been and still are perceiving God in many diverse and often conflicting ways. If God absolutely did not want such diverse conceptions and opinions of Him, it is my opinion that He would have straightened everyone out in a much more efficient manner that an OT Canon and eventually a NT Canon. I suspect that God probably has more direct and efficient means of getting His point across.I wrote:

quote:

---

Two different human beings attempting to communicate is not an easy or cut and dry process.

---

and you replied: So why would God employ human beings and human languages to get His point made? Yes, correct. It is my opinion that the Heb. Tanakh {OT} is the best possible literature to describe the otherwise indescrible. That is not to say that the Heb. OT is unbias and always accurate. But, the Canaanite-Old Hebrew writing system is uniquely designed to convey spiritual/metaphorical concepts. The preExilic texts of the Heb. OT are of a particular interest to me. The "book of Genesis" is not "just another Myth." There are indeed mythical qualities in various parts of the Hebrew Text, but, by and large the "book of Genesis" shares a quality of wisdom and understanding of the "real world" that very few cultures have been capable of preserving.Regards,
Ger

bertot: You asked, There are none. Perhaps if I had a greater intellect that could absorb a considerable amount of information, I would learn, examine, and explore other religious texts. But, unfortunately, my brain can only hold just so much. Know what I mean?Furthermore, the Hebrew twenty-two consonantal writing system is identical to the Canaanite/Phoenician writing system from which Greek, Latin, English, Arabic, Aramaic, and Sanskrit - to name a few - are derived. This would make the Hebrew writing system identical to the oldest syllabic writing system that human beings are aware of. Our extremely ancient ancestors employed this literary means of communication to share with us a world view that humanity will never experience again. The very fact that after all the Jews have gone through they as a people have preserved a concept of Deity which dates back before the Hebrews became nomadic herdsmen is a living-miracle. That, to me, is astounding.Regards,
Ger

jaywill: I have not forgotten your post #208. Our friend bertot has kept me rather busy, but I do want to respond to you also. I need a little while to get my head together and do a few chores.I will respond.Regards,
Ger