Biblical Translation--Eden

I understood that. I phrased it poorly. I know we are not talking about supernatural persecution. You know I see the same kinds of arguments surface in defending the gospels. Sometimes I don't know exactly what the source of these arguments are. But I recognize them.One refinement I see in your debating approach is to use quotes from Tertullian and Eardman's Bible Handbook to try to add a extra measure of irony I suppose. Over the years we see the same arguments sometimes refined and re-packaged.Anyway, what strikes me as weird in this last rehashed complaint about Matt. 2:16 is this attitude "But it is ONLY recorded in Matthew's gospel."I don't agree that simply because Matthew chose to include this event in his gospel that makes it unlikely to be reliable.I don't see that much less suspicion from some skeptics at things that ARE corroborated by the other evangelists. When some events are repeated I don't see the skeptics be relieved that they are. Rather I see them complain that collusion probably has taken place.This is wanting it both ways. Isolated mentioning is uncorroborated and untrustworthy. Multiple mentions as subject to suspicion because of collusion. Perhaps they conspired together to fix the story to be artificially consistent.Judges look for evidence of collusion in court. Divergent details from many witnesses is sometimes not and indication that the event did not take place. But rather it can be evidence that it did take place and collusion is not at work in the multiple testimonies of the event.Should we say then that the things recorded by all five books - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and Acts are the things you would accept as more probably valid? Is that a criteria you prefer?Have you ever personally started with the "corroborated" details in the New Testament in your search for the truth? It should be easy to get a Harmony of the Gospels which places the four side by side showing where they are speaking of the same message or event.
I have one.Did you start your search with the most corroborated material? Then don't worry about it. If you simply want to point out how the English language works on this matter. I don't see why you're talking about it so much.Not that I say I am sure I agree with you. But you seem to be mentioning and re-mentioning this just to say "Well, that's just the way the English symantics works." So if there is a limitation with the symantics of definitions, then jump over that limitation, and we can all understand one another somehow.Definitions of words are related to CULTURE. The Christian experience of the resurrected Christ Who became a life giving Spirit - "the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) neccesitates the rise of another CULTURE. We have to have many of our own words and definitions to explain the culture that God has led us into.There may be some overlap of word usage. But the disciples are in the world but not off the world. We have to have special meanings of words like - regeneration, redemption, reconciliation, atonement, transformation, transfiguration, deification, ascension, parousia, anointing, trinity, triune, dispensation, etc.These words may not be totally unreconizable to you. But to the Christian church they have a special cultural meaning. Webster may not be the best place for you to grasp the cultural meaning of these words in the experience of the disciples of Jesus.There will be some failure to understand between the world and the disciples at times. Especially it is true that only the disciples have received the Holy Spirit. Jesus warned the disciples that there would be this "cultural" differencee between those who have received the "Spirit of reality" and those who constitute the cosmos, the world, who have yet to receive this Spirit: Please bear with me and my style as I point out some important facts about this teaching of Jesus:"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, that He may be with you forever." If there is to be "another Comforter" then there had to have been a first Comforter. The first Comforter is Jesus the physical man who was physically walking with the disciples for three and one half years. He was with them as the first Comforter.He now says that another Comforter will be with them forever."Even the Spirit of reality wom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him"The disciples are to be in the world. But the regenerated disciples will experience Someone that the world that surrounds them cannot experience. That is until those of the world themselves also become the followers of Christ. That is [b]"the Spirit of reality."{/bThis leads to a new culture. People on the earth experiencing the "another Comforter, the Spirit of reality" are moving within a new culture." ... the world cannot receive [the Spirit of reality] because it does not behold Him or know Him; but you know Him because He abides with you and shall be in you."The world at large cannot physically see this Person. However the disciples are presently having this Person WITH them. Jesus was with them. In the near future this Person will be IN them. The Jesus who was physically WITH them Whom they knew, would come to be IN them.The Another Comforter is Jesus Christ in another form. He is in another form moving from being WITH them in the physical way to being IN them in the spiritual way. This is not a sentimental being in them. This is a real spiritual indwelling of a Person.We may call this Person the pneumatic Christ. He is the Person Who was with them as the first Comforter coming to dwell IN them as another Comforter.Now we refer again to Paul's true teaching " the last Adam became a life giving Spirit " (1 Cor. 15:45)The world is not experiencing the life giving Spirit. The believers and those of the world who repent to believe, receive the life giving Spirit - the Spirit of reality."He abides with you and shall be in you. I will not leave you as orphans. I am coming to you."This is firstly God in a man, Jesus, with the disciples. Now after His death and resurrection He will be God in Jesus as the Spirit of reality, another Comforter IN the disciples. That it is the same Jesus is proved by verse 18:"I will not leave you as orphans. I am coming to you.He Who was with them is now going to come to them. He will not leave them as orphans. He will become the life giving Spirit and indwell within them. The world cannot know this Person. The disciples can receive this Person."I am coming to you." refers to Jesus in His pneumatic form, as Another Comforter and the life giving Spirit, the Spirit of reality coming to indwell within the believers. This all leads to a new culture.In the same chapter this concept of the coming indwelling Christ is reinforced by verses 22 and 23: The coming of the Spirit of reality to be IN the disciples is definitely the coming of the Father and the Son as the divine "We" to have an abode in the lover of Jesus.This is how Jesus in resurrection, will manifest Himself to the believers while the world does not know it. Before I mention how this Spirit functions towards the world I must mention this:Jesus says in verse 19: I use to wonder at this verse. I thought that the disciples will live regardless of whether the Lord Jesus lives or not. Then I realized that this is not living as the world normally things. This is living God.I did not say this is living for God. I said that this is living God. Or this is allowing God to live out through us. This is the Triune God living and abiding within man so that man lives out the divine life. By growth and maturation the believers lives because Christ in resurrection is the one living His life again within the believer.Paul spoke to Timothy about laying hold of that which is REALLY life: It is living in oneness Christ which is the life which is REALLY life. And to learn to do so is to treasure up for ourselves a foundation for the future. In the future godless and Christless living will pass away forever. The world to come will be have in it the living of the indwelling Christ. That is the living which results from allowing the Triune God to come and make an abode within us.Jesus assures the disciples that in the day they are brought into this living they shall know the essence of His mission and message:"In that day you will know that I am in My Father and you in Me and I in you." (John 14:20)In that day we can know that God is absolutely in Christ. And Christ with God is in the believers. And they are in the realm of Christ and God. God is in Christ and Christ is united with man. This is the new culture.Now the world is not altogether left out of the function of the Spirit of reality. Jesus teaches that though world cannot behold Him they can receive the conviction that they may be saved and also experience the salvation of the Triune God: The One who indwells the disciples as the Spirit of reality also seeks to convict the world concerning sin, righteousness, and judgement. Then those of the world culture who repent and receive the salvation of Jesus can also be added to the new culture of those withing whom dwells the Comforter, the Spirit of reality. And this Spirit will guide the disciples into all of the reality.I have tried in this post to show how John helped us to understand the two cultures which are side by side after the resurrection of Christ. John's understanding of the gospel message was exceedingly profound for him to record and present these truths to us.He knew what the issues would be. And he wrote his gospel partly to explain how Christ refered to these issues. Even the questions that John records the disciples asking reflect his understanding of the issues:" ... what has happened that You are to manifest Yourself to us and not to the world?" (John 14:22)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.

To Jaywill, very impressive and well thoughtout information. I was hoping that you guys might consider carrying this topic to another thread/post whatever, it is called, as we are coming to the end of our 300 sanctioned post authorized by the holy administators. What do you say is this acceptable to you two. I think there is much we still need to discuss.D Bertot

AM writesCertainly a cut and past would be fine if this is what choose. Certainly it is not regarded as a naural event but the dictionary most certainly gives it a discription and is not assuming as you are that it has no possibilty. Def 7. "Direct influence by a deity on earthly affairs".Furthermore, when the dictionary says, "not explainable by natural laws" it is refering to a phisical and material type of law. Not a law that would be described as 'Deductive Reasoning', a principle or rule of law we use to understand a fact or principle of reality. In other words you can understand that a supernatural act is very possible, even if it is not probable by utilizing a rule or LAW as you call it to demonstrate its very real possibilty, given the fact and reality of God's exsistence. Your approach is simply to confining and does not incoorperate all the ways one can and does acknowledge reality.certainly we are probably not going to get past what constitues a historical diocument, fact or reality,but maybe we can make some A supernatural event is not regarded by human language as natural, but certainly you can see past the semantics involved, to know that if the creator, that is he who created everything, as you acknowledge operated in a way to affect those natural laws, this would constitute a NATURAL process,if not why not? You are just arguing semantics. You said in another place that Gods intervention in the affairs of men would disrupt the natural order of things. How do you KNOW this and what would be your evidence to support this. There any many assertions and assumptions here that if I might borrow a word are, UNCORROBRATED. Example, how do you KNOW THAT God would not do it in some supernatural way. Forgive me but these are baseless assertions. Look up the word believe in the dictionary. To believe somthing is to know something. It is not always an unsubstantiated assumption.
It is also an assumption to say categorically that miracles or he supernatural did not happen and that the natural order af things constitues a valid reason to reject them as a reality. this does not constitute a logical or valid method to reject the NT writings as less than historical. This is at best a convoluted argument you are presenting. Convoluted, "twisted, complicated way of describing an otherwise very simple process".ThanksD Bertot

I am sorry that I haven't had a chance to respond to your second post on Romans. However, I found the first reply satisfactory.Thanks

Thank you. Uncooborated does not equal unreliable. I have been spelling that word incorrectly. I think that way to do that is to present at least contemporary counter testimony. But some skeptics complain that if there was the Christians would have destroyed it. I see it. It is the difference between simply sowing general suspicion or putting out innuendos as ground for suspicion and having something solid in the way of contradictions. I have been terribly mispelling cooberated. It has been pointed out to me that the magi went to Jesus when he was about two years old. For it was the boys of that age that Herod had killed.If I recall rightly Matthew says that the magi entered into the house not the stable (Matthew 2:11). So I believe I was taught that the typical artist's conception of the magi in a stable with the baby Jesus is not according to the actual account.I was told that when they came to see the child he was around two years old and no longer in a manger but in a house. Do you have an opinion on this little piece of trivia?Or perhaps it is important and not trivial. I see your point. But there seems to be a vindication of the reality of it all which is beyond argument embodied in the second comiong of Christ.It seems that God reserves the total vindication of His word concerning Jesus with the advent of His second coming. So on one level I kind of sympathize with AM's position a little. I do not sympathize with unbelief. I mean I understand that the God has left something of total verification wanting which will be completed universally in the second coming of Christ.Of course by that time the consequences for unbelief may not be reversed for some who chose not to believe during the church age. Let me think about this and meditate on this for awhile. Incidently, as you can see I believe the Bible.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Jaywill, thanks for your response, I know you and Autumnman are very busy people. Sorry I didnot mean to sound preachy by quoting those scriptures to you and I would not presume to lecture on scripture. Its just a force habit in defending something.I have read what you were talking about, with regard to the age of Christ, manger, etc, but I guess I had never thought about it. I will look it up. Very well put, smartalic,egghead. Just kidding. That would be one way of viewing it. I would not disagree with this premise.Do you fellas think it is a good idea to continues these discussion elswhere? I dont expect a response to this post, maybe just this question?D Bertot

Biblical Translation”EdenJaywill, bertot: the above is the title of this particular thread of discussion.Unfortunately, the sub-culture that you both happen to belong to does not employ the established definitions of the English Language. According to both of you the English words are spelled the same as the established English words, but your sub-culture bestows these words very different meanings.Historically speaking, according to the broad English Culture of the U.S, the terms “historical” and “supernatural” are not employed together in a coherent fashion. Historically speaking, the terms--corroborated, substantiated, confirmed, explainable, and objective--do in fact describe the manner in which the “reliability” of an ancient text or the statements made within an ancient text is established. The reliability of a described supernatural event, according to the broad English Culture of the U.S., cannot be explained, confirmed, substantiated, or corroborated because a supernatural event, by definition, is outside the realm of nature and real human existence.Your English Bible sub-culture can claim anything that it so desires. But, whatever it claims cannot be associated with the broader English Culture of the U.S. because the definitions of the terms employed by the broader English Culture do not in any way apply to what your English Bible sub-culture is claiming.My original intent of this thread - Biblical Translation”Eden - was to discuss the Hebrew terms employed in the Hebrew OT version of the Gen. 2:4 - 3:24 creation account. However, your English Bible sub-culture also rejects the lexicographic meanings and grammatical rules of the biblical Hebrew literary language. That is really too bad, because you and your English Bible sub-culture are missing out on a great deal of information that is conveyed in Torah, the prophets, and the rest of the Hebrew OT. The vast majority of Jews and Jewish scholars do not accept what your English Bible sub-culture is saying, because what you are saying does in no way conforms to what your sub-culture claims is “The Word of God.”In the synoptic Greek and English Gospels the authors of those Gospels describe Jesus of Nazareth saying, “Judge not.” For someone to be able to “judge” one must employ "the knowledge of good and evil.” There is a metaphorical tree that is mentioned in the Gn. 2:4 - 3:24 creation account that God commands the human archetype not to eat/taste or partake of. This is the first “command” that the supreme God charges upon any human being or human-like being according to the Heb. OT.Jesus says, “Judge not”, and the supreme God of creation lays charge upon the human archetype to not eat/taste or partake of "the knowledge of good and evil" which would allow a human being to have the mental faculty to “judge.”Is it just me, or do you guys also see a connection there?If at all possible, let’s try to get back on track.I look forward to your replies,All the best,
Ger

Autunman, this is a very well worded and interesting post. Can we move backwards from where we are at to get to your original thread theme, instead of moving directly to it. That seems the logical cousre to pursue, what do you say. Thanks for not abandoning the thread, but dont make me call the Whaaambulence. Jus kidding ofcourse.D Bertot.

bertot, jaywill:I am extremely interested in all the subjects we have been discussing. We can most certainly get from where we are back to the original thread theme without moving directly to it.Let's keep discussing the present subjects with the idea that we will eventually get back to where it all began.I have no intention of abandoning the thread -- all subjects discussed here are quite important and much is and can be learned from examining them from various points of view.Let's keep going and see what awaits us.All the best,
Ger

bertot: I hope the directors of this forum will allow us to continue this thread of discussion. We are just getting to the real intersting parts of our debate. I will see if I can figure out how to ask the administrators if they will allow us to continue.The English word "semantics" is directly derived from the Hebrew word shem= name, reputation, byword, designation, epithet, revealed character, memorial. This Heb. masculine noun is derived from the adverb sham= there, pointing directly at that to which the "name" refers. There are no "labels" in Hebrew. For example the "name" Samuel {Heb. shemuel} quite literally means, "name of God" and describes the great prophet of the 11th century BC. Heb. shem is also the "name" of the first son of Noah. Certain people in the OT receive certain "names" because of what they do and therefore, who they are. Certain things are called certain "names" {"nouns" in English} because of what they actually are, and what part they play in human reality.The "semantics" of any language are extremely important because there can be no coherent communication until the "meanings" of certain words as they are employed in a given context can be agreed upon.That is why human beings invented "dictionaries" and "lexicons." The English word "diction" means: style of speaking or writing as dependent upon the choice of words. The term "lexicon" is defined: the vocabulary of a particular language.You asked me: I looked up the word "believe" in two Webster's Unabridged Dictionaries, and both definitions are essentially identical. Here is the series of definitions from the 2003 WUD:

quote:

---

believe: 1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so. 2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of an assertion, story, etc.; to give credence to. 3. to have confidence in the assertions of a person. 4. to have a conviction. 5. to suppose or assume. 6. believe in to be persuaded of the truth or existence of; to have faith in the reliability, honesty of.

---

I see nowhere in the above renditions of the term "believe" where the idea of "knowing" is even mentioned.Perhaps it is you who are not fully comprehending the English term "believe".All the best,
Ger

bertot and jaywill: I talked to the Admin Director and when we reach the 300 post limit the Director said that we can submit a "New Topic" suggestion under the title "Biblical Translation - Eden, 2". The Director said that we need a couple brief paragraphs explaining the direction in which "New Topic" discussion is oriented.I was thinking that we could begin wherever you and jaywill think we should, but I would very much like to move the discussion toward the original topic's initial focus.Let me know what you think.All the best,
Ger

To AM Outstansding. thanks for accomplishing that task. I must admit though, Iam not sure even what your original theme, topic or emphasis was I came in so late. Your and Jaywills decisions are fine with me though. You seem to be a Hebraist, or atleast have a comprehensive knowledge of it. I am not sure I can keep up wtih that end of it but I will try. If you and Jaywill want to write up some paragraphs, have at it. Write away, Braniac, Just kidding ofcourse.A couple of quick questions before we start if you dont mind. You speak of characters in the Bible (OT) in your posts as if they are real characters, Ezra, Nehemiah, etc. Do you believe these are real people and the actual people mentioned by name, that the scriptures describes. If so do you believe Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jacob are real people that actually existed? Just a point of interest for me. Maybe we can get started right here.You want to discuss Eden, but I would wonder if you think it was a real or fictional place.I will get to your post about the word BELIEF in the morning. I noticed that you approached itfrom your usual HUMANISTIC, nonsensical positon. Ha, Ha.D Bertot

AM writesThanks for your very comprehensive discourse on the word SEMANTICS. I mean that seriously, that is very interesting stuff. I however, w as using the word in the simple vernacular as to mean, using the word to belay a certain cavil or point. However, since you did not specify what point or post this was I am not sure what thing you are refering to that I made use of this word with. if you care later maybe we can elaborate. I think you know what I am getting ready to say here, being the very intelligent individual are, but I will say it anyway. did you happen to place close attention to the first part of the definiton that says "have confidence in truth", To have confidence in, is to apply the propeties of our mental factors with the process of deductive reasoning, this applied to TRUTH. Now look up the word truth in the dictionary (you Bible) ha, ha. Then you will see the the words, "the true or actual state of a matter. 2. conformity with fact or reality". When we apply our mental facalties to the TRUTH we come up with a belief, that is real and KNOWABLE, how much clearer could this be to any thinking person. Now should onsay at this point, that the definiton says, without exact proof, I again would say that that is not the definiton of KNOWLADGE and it is not reqiered to have absolute proof, about this or that in fact or reality, absolute proof is not requied even by the dictionary standards. Therefore, belief can be, not always, knowledge, that is REAL and factual. See how it works.Let me point out at this juncture, that the point I have made above is crucial in the process of two or three people speaking on any given topic, due to the fact that one person or the other may not believe, (theres that word again), that TRUTH or KNOWLEDGE is actually ascertainable. People should really have a common frame of reference in this area before they can have a serious discussion any where else, agreed.D Bertot

bertot:Perhaps I can employ your last post in the opening of the New Topic Suggestion. I am not going to respond to this post of yours right now, but instesd see if I can open the New Topic - Biblical Translation-Eden,2.Let me know what you think,Ger

To AM. That sounds like a fine suggestion to me but please dont forget about the questions in post 297. I also promised you I would respond to post 270 of yours, as I believe it is one of the most important ones in this discussion. I will get to it as it presents itself in the next thread.ThanksD Bertot