Biblical Translation--Eden

You made some ood points and brought up some good questions. I think you are forgetting one very important point. If the God that you described to us, created us the way he did, in his image. Or atleast we have the aility to think for ourselves, that is. Then it should not be to hard to see that free will implies the ability to accept, ignore, reject and disobey anything we wish to,no matter what the truth or consequences are., ie, Satan or anyone else. He was alledgedly in Gods very presense and knew more about God than we did and still rejected him. What is Mr Bertot's point. here it is, no matter the way God presents something we still have the choice to ignore, disregard and disobey anything we wish, otherwise freewill would have no purpose. God can does and will eventually take care of these so-called problems. o in the same vain we have the previledge to view him any way we wish. If indeed Christ was the image of the Father, people could take him anyway they wanted. He however, gave atleast some enough info to believe who he was. Your complaining about the way God does things is not an argument or reason to not believe in thescriptures. Because humans are the people that inhabit this planet he created. Its a happy balance between free will and God's authority. You made a comment somewhere else, that Christianity did not have all the answers. If people (all people) would adhere to the principles of Christ there would be no problems. But that is the point, they have free will. God's method of dealing as you call it, is as direct as it can be without tyranny on his part. You appear just one step away from the most crucial decision, accepting it as God's word. If you continue to study I hope you will make the crucial step. Your preoccupation with it should give you insight to its uniquness and difference from all others.

Autumnman writes , As good an apologetic statment I have ever heared. This should give you some impression as to what you are dealing with.D Bertot

bertot: You wrote: Human beings are born not knowing a great deal. Do you agree? What we do not know as toddlers and small children is the knowledge of what is good and bad or right and wrong. Deut. 1:39 conveys this fact of human life quite clearly. And Jesus points to infants and young children, saying, "for of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Mat. 19:14). Jesus makes no mention of these little children bearing the sin of Adam.An individual does not have a "choice" if 1. they are mentally incapable of comprehending the choices, and 2. if the choices before them are garnished with eternal damnation for making the wrong choice.Free will can only exist if one has a working understanding of benefits and consequences {i.e. a clear knowledge of what is at stake), and Free will cannot be exercised under duress or threat.I personally have been taught how and often what to think, and my Free will was only funtional within the confindes of what I knew, and what I understood of what I knew. As I gain a clearer understanding of what is expected of me my ability to freely choose what actions to take becomes easier and easier. I am nearly 58 years old and I am still very confused insofar as what God wants me as well as the rest of humanity to actually do. If only Free will and life were synonymous. Unfortunately they are not. I have always responded best when the thread of eternal damnation was off the table. The threat of eternal damnation just makes me angry, not compliant. Hearing "truth" that rings true within the brain and mind that I possess always makes me calm and compliant.I feel as though most of humanity actually does the best it can with the brains they possess and the tools at their disposal.Regards,
Ger

In my previous post we were indirectly discussing why God might do or not do a thing a certain way. Or why God would not have a more direct approach. In the above statement you imply that he should do this in a much more efficient manner. Two other points I would like to make here.First there are millions of people with different opinions like yours. Which of these peoples opinions should he choose from, or is yours the correct one. You see the immediate problem here, with above statement of yours. You believe an omnipotent, omniscient beign like God should discard his method and adopt yours on ,your say so.Further you are implying the OT cannot be the message and revelation of God because it does not fit in with your pattern of thinking and there are simply to many problems with it. I would like to point out that you believe that God created the world, yet there are many problems with it. Maybe your God is not powerful enough to take care of it. you see the problem here again, Gods decisions not peoples opinions have got to be the standard. Read the book of JOB.thanksD Bertot

I do not believe in original sin as did Calvin. Yes infants are born without sin, they are SAFE not SAVED. We vear the consequences of Adams sin, not the guilt of it. When we reach the age of accountability, whenever that is, only God can judge, we fall into sin. John 3:4, says sinis transgression of the law. Logically, one would have to understand it before he could be guilty. yhere is no record of children being baptized in the NT. Point one is true. Point 2 is false. You misunderstand freedom. You are not free to do what ever you want throughout eternity, you are free to make the right choices or wrong choices sure, but Gods will has to play a partin the process. Asimple example will suffice. We have freedom of choice in this country, but not to break the Law without consequences. This is an assertion not an argument. I have answered it above. This statement does not make Gods teaching invalid, just because you dont like it. Again this is not an argument but a statement. i can understand your anger and I would like to believe, eternal damnation meant eternal oblivion, I could even live with that, but that is not what Gods word teaches. Pretending like it is not real will not make it go away.Thanks
D Bertot

bertot:I think that I am not making myself clear once more, or, you are misunderstanding what I am saying.I do not have a problem with how God is doing anything. I do not have a problem with the world. Whatever I disagree with is of absolutely no consequence. I do not matter. I am not claiming that I have the answer. Furthermore, even if I happened to have an answer to any of the problems facing humanity and the planet, there is no way I could communicate that answere in a way that anybody would listen to it.Therefore, in a very literal sense, It is not my problem.Christians seem to think that they have the answers, "believing in Christ our Lord, taking Jesus Christ as one's Lord and savior, and following the rules and laws set down by God. Good for them. The only problem is that the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, other Christian sects, and more, do not see it that way. We have been literally fighting over this particular issue for thousands of years, and it looks like there is no end in sight. Again, It is not my problem.It is God's creation and I suspect that He has it performing precisely as it should. Thank God.I am only interested in researching the ancient texts that comprise the Judeo-Christian canon. And, I am also interested in some of the texts that were left out of that canon. I am currently discussing with you and jawill what I perceive in those texts and I am greatly benefiting from yours' and jaywill's insights and perspectives. I am not here to change anyone's mind, or faith, or belief. I am here to discuss and debate the issues as they are discovered. I argue and discuss my point of view because it is my point of view. I do not expect anyone to drop what they have believed for 30+ years and all of a sudden see things from my point of view. And there are no consequences if they don't. Wow! All we have to do then is learn from one another. And all it costs us really is a little of our time.What a deal. Does that help clear things up? Or, have I just muddied the waters again?Regards,
GerEdited by autumnman, : No reason given.

Not to be disagreeable Mr A. but you made it very clear that you would certainly think that God could handle the affairs of men. better than he did in the Old Testament, implying that this could not be who wrote the scriptures. This constitues an accusation and argument. Further you have made specific implications about freewill and eternal punishment, again implying some contradiction in scripture, that is a barrier to understanding. I did not say it was your problem. You indicated you had a problem with it and the issues I just mentioned. Christians dont believe they have the answers, they believe that Christ has the answers. As I said before, if people followed his principles there would be little to know problems. The fighting comes from mns freewill to ignore Gods principles. When God speaks in the Old or New Testament, you say Oh no this cant be right. But when its your God of nature, you say everything is fine and dandy. Can you really say the world with all the pain and suffering and evil, is the way your God wants it. You asked why the God of the OT didnt do things more effivent and direct. I will asked why your God doesnt intervine and ease peoples pain and suffering. With the amount of contentions you have with my opinions and others I find i hard to believe you are ONLY interested in textual criticism. Further, you seem to make me appear as though I am here to change peoples opinions. Neither is true. I am here to discuss and learn. Heated debate is part of the process. But part of debate is responding to arguments that are presented to you directly or indirectly. You often imply an argunent or suppositon, then latter imply that this is not your intentions. I am only responding to what you have presented. I asked all those questions for a specific purpose.Thanks. I truely enjoy your comments, but I have to respond to the things you present.D Bertot

bertot:I sincerely apologize. It is I who has misunderstood you. That kind of thing happens sometimes. Again. I apologize. I was musing out loud regarding the OT, suggesting that if God had written those Scriptures with the intent of making himself clear about his desires regarding all mankind, he certainly chose a very ineffective means of communication. The OT canon was not even completed until the 4th century BC; and, furthmore, the NT canon was not established until the 4th century AD. And even to this day the Judao-Christian Holy Bible is not yet known to or by all mankind. agreed. A barrier to what understanding? Understanding that the Judao-Christian Bible is the actual "word(s) of God?" In my opinion, there needs to be a lack of that style of irrational understanding. I must have been just getting punch-drunk. Again. I apologize. My brain was apparently on overload. I do indeed have a number of problems we were discussing. If indeed "Christ" has the answeres, why do you quote most frequently from Paul in regard to church doctrine, and hardly ever from the actual "words" of "the word/Jesus Christ"?People do not know what Jesus Christ's principles are. Jesus himself said that "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division" (Luke 12:51). What is it; division or peace? I am confused. love your enemy for if he is not baptized he is damned anyhow? What exactly are we supposed to be following here? Maybe we should just listen to Paul, but, unfortunately, he is a little confusing also.Perhaps mankind would be better off listining to nature, as opposed to believing in the "words of man." Nature is a consistent "truth." Nature is, and if we learned from "What Is" there would be a great deal less confusion, conflict, pain, and suffering. Prior to children learning from their parents and community who they should hate and who they should kill, those children from varying ethnic backgrounds get along quite well. Persistent conflict and bias religious and secular teachings push people apart. Like Jesus says, he did come to bring peace, he came to bring division. Well, great. Good job. He certainly accomplished that mission.I again must apologize for the "heat" you may detect above. It is just me spouting off.Regard, my friend,
Ger

To Autumnman, Outstanding, I thoughut you had become dicouraged and gave up. I am fine with what evey kind of sarcasm, ridicule you wish to impart, I see it as a natural part of the discussion process, if you dont lose sight of the topic or purpose. For example you are most definatlely entitled to you goofy opinions, its not my fault they are all wrong, inconsistent, illogical, and completely of track. Ha, Ha. See how it works, ofcourse I am just kidding. I will get to the drivel you wrote in your last post in just a few minutes.D Bertot

bertot: A sense of humor is SO necessary, eh?I do look forwad to your response, my friend.I'm going to take my wife out to eat, and when we get back I'll check in and see where we're at.All the best,
Ger

In your view what would you consider a "more efficient way" to communicate his desires, if we were to take the musing seriously?
Further I will leave the dating of the OT to you Jaywill and others.
It may be the case that certain of the canon were not in place until a certain date. But the 10 commandments and the Levitical Law was certainly at thier disposal and knowledge, and this is ofcourse what mattered the most and what they needed as direction from God. Inother words, all lawgivers (Moses) are prophets but not Prophets are Lawgivers., etc etc. Agreed.In this same connection, it is common misconception amoung heathens, ha ha, like yourself, that because this book or that book was not in place, Gods children somehow did not have the truth or what he wanted them to know at thier disposal. As I indicated above, this simply not the case. As I indicated to you earlier in another post. Jesus' words in John 16:13, made it very clear that the Apostles and deciples would have what they needed, ie "he will guide you into all truth, and show you things to come"., "and lo I am with you unto the end of thhis dipensation". This information or truth was initially in men, through inspiration of the holy Spirit as I indicated from my argument in 1 Cor chapter 13. As the gifts of the Spirit faded away, inspiration was transfered from men to a sacred writing, the NT, to include the further direction and guidance of the apostles leters. The Apostles were the only ones baptized in the Holy Spirit and as a result had the ability to trasfer spiritual gifts, through the laying on of hands. Those people that recieved this laying on of hands could not transfer the power, so the gifts that they and the others had, would begin to fade away, as those people past away.
By that time the inspired writings were coming into place accompanied by the sipritual gifts. One faded one remained. Inspiration was transfered from men to a book. This not say that God does not operate in the area of providence to or that he does not answer prayers today. He simply does not work in the same fashion he did as he did back then. In other words, there has never been a time that Gods people did have of an instructioal manner what they needed. Pauls words are Christs words and visversa. Its all the Holy Spirit, not he individuals themselves.More in a minute.D Bertot

Further, what topic would you like me quote from Jesus about. Let know and I will do this. John 16:13, is a start.Further a simple expsition of Jesus' words and use commentary from scholars would make his words very simple. His messages were not only the truth but would cause contraversy and hardship for many people. The best example I can give you is the rich young ruler, who was told to sell all he had and give to the poor. Christ was trying to show what true commitment would involve and it IMMEDIATLEY set up a conflict in his head. He was faced with a decision, etc.
A little simple study would clear up most of the misunderstandings. People are not always going to agree on everything, but that is not required to be a child of God. The Apostles got numerous things wrong all the time when they were traveling with Christ. Nature may be consistent but is also cruel and deadly. Again why does your God of nature not do a better job of eliminating these problems. Some of the above atatement is true. But it simply ignores the fact that people can and are cruel, no matter how good you are to them, or how much truth they are aware of. Its called free will.Thanks again.D Bertot

To Autunman There were a couple of things I left off in my last post, were these. We were discussing what the children of God had and needed at a specific time, specfic books etc. It must be understood that Salvation is Salvation and specific knowledge or fact are facts. My point is this. Gods people had what they needed Salvation throught the knowledge and blood of Christ but not every chuch everywhere possed every particle of knowledge initially. Consider these words from that much quoted Apostle Paul Writing to the Church at Rome, he says in chapter one. "my desire is to come to you that I might IMPART SOME SPIRITUAL GIFT (miraculous no doubt), to the end that you MAY BE ESTABLISHED", Or complete in understanding.Wht does this indicate. That while they were children or God, it was not initially necessary that they had every particle of knowledge. But on his arrival he could accomplish this task. Salvation and the basic principles were initially the way until they came in to complete knowledge through the spiritual gifts and the inspired writing. The gifts faded with passing of men, the inspired writings remained as a source of complete understanding of what God wanted them to know. 1 Tim 3:16-17, "all scripture is inspired of God that the man of God might be complete thoughouly furnished unto every good work.Even the Gentiles during the time on Moses' law were under Gods guidence. "For when the Gentiles which have not the Law, do by nature the things contained in the Law (basic principles), which show the work of the Law written in thier hearts...., they are a Law unto themselves" Romans 2:14. This is ofcourse the intrinsic law of the heart. The in Acts 10 it is stated, "at the times of this ignorance, God let pass, but now (under the Law of Christ), commands ALL MEN EVERYWHERE to repent".So the implication that certain books were not added until later is of no real consequence.I awit your reply with eager anticipation.D Bertot

bertot:You have given me much to reply to. Let me study what you have conveyed and when I think I have heard you correctly I will respond.I also want to reply to jaywill's post #208.I am really gaining much from both of you. Our discussions and debates are a rare human experience, even for a heathen like myself.The best to both you and jaywill,
Ger

jaywill wrote: According to the Webster's English dictionary, "Religious belief" does not constitute a "historical" event. In English, apparently, we have "historical" events recorded in "History Books," and we have "Religious Books" that record "religious" events. English is in fact the language we are employing at this moment. Either we follow established English definitions in our dialogue, or, it will become increasingly difficult to communicate with one another. So, let's see what the established definitions are for "religious" and "historical".religious: of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion.
religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and prupose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing amoral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
belief: something believed; an opinon or conviction; confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.historical: having once existed or lived in the real world, as opposed to being part of legend or fiction or as distinguished from religious belief.(All definitions are from Websters' Unabridged Dictionary, 2003)Your terminology - -is an "oxymoron" {a figure of speech which produces an incongruous, self-contradiction} according to the definitions of the English language; a "historical" event cannot be correctly applied to a "divine miracle" event.I know that you and bertot do not agree with this established English definition, but, too bad, that is how the English language happens to define the above terms.All the best,
Ger