Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblical Translation—Eden, 4
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 241 of 306 (470284)
06-10-2008 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by autumnman
06-10-2008 1:07 PM


Re: The Hebrew Eden Narrative Map
The scripture says in another place that "the body returns to dust and the Siprit returns to God who gave it".
Now, this would give direction to "nether" and would explain the fact that God can place spirits of men anywhere he chooses.
I am certain if Hell does indeed exist that it is in the spirit world and not in the throne room of God. The scriptures make it plain that there is Paradise and there is the part of heaven that involves the presence of God himself and they are distinct by an examination of certain scriptures. Heck, if these scriptures did not make these distinctions, I would not believe it either, but they do and that is the point and that is why there is no contradiction.
D Bertot
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by autumnman, posted 06-10-2008 1:07 PM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by autumnman, posted 06-10-2008 8:43 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 242 of 306 (470363)
06-10-2008 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Dawn Bertot
06-10-2008 2:21 PM


Re: The Hebrew Eden Narrative Map
bertot:
The scripture says in another place that "the body returns to dust and the Siprit returns to God who gave it".
Now, this would give direction to "nether" and would explain the fact that God can place spirits of men anywhere he chooses.
I am certain if Hell does indeed exist that it is in the spirit world and not in the throne room of God. The scriptures make it plain that there is Paradise and there is the part of heaven that involves the presence of God himself and they are distinct by an examination of certain scriptures. Heck, if these scriptures did not make these distinctions, I would not believe it either, but they do and that is the point and that is why there is no contradiction.
I am reading the Text as the Scriptures present it. You, on the other hand, are trying to defend the indefensible.
Let’s just say, for the sake of your argument, that there is a “Spiritual Realm”. Now, within this “Spiritual Realm” there is Hades {a.k.a. Hell} that exists in the “nether” {a.k.a. beneath, under, lower} part of the “Spiritual Realm”, and there are a number of “heavens” to which one would ascend. “Being cast down into Hades”, would be the terminology used. “Ascending into a particular heaven”, would be the terminology used. Let’s see if a couple examples from the New and Old Testaments confirm this use of terminology:
The “Spiritual Realm of Hell” is “down”:
New Testament:
quote:
Matthew 11:23 “...shalt be brought down to hell...”(KJV)
quote:
2nd Peter 2:4 “...but cast them down to hell..." (KJV)
Old Testament:
quote:
Deuteronomy 32:22 “...unto the lowest hell {Heb. ’ad-she’ol thachethiy=unto underworld lowest}..."(KJV & BHS)
The “Spiritual Realm of heaven” is “exulted / up”:
New Testament:
quote:
Matthew 11:23 “...which art exalted {Gk. ”lifted up’} unto heaven...”(KJV)
quote:
John 3:13 “And no man hath ascended up to heaven {Gk. the heaven}...”(KJV & Greek TN)
Old Testament:
quote:
2nd Kings 2:1 “...the LORD would take up Elijah into heaven{Heb. the heavens}..."(KJV & BHS)
In John 3:13 the Greek term for “heaven” is preceded by the article {which serves to distinguish things more exactly}: ton ouranon= the heaven i.e. the abode of God. In 2nd Kings 2:1 the Hebrew term for “heaven” is also preceded by the definite article {when expressing emphasis or definiteness is intended}: hashamaym = the heavens i.e. the abode of God.
There is no argument you can make that will change these Textual, and grammatical facts. Elijah was taken by the LORD into the heavens where the LORD resides. Therefore, the statement in John 3:13 is inconsistent with what is clearly stated in 2nd Kings 2:1.
You do not have to acknowledge these “Textual Inconsistencies”, but that does not mean they do not exist; for they clearly and plainly do exist.
All the best,
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-10-2008 2:21 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Archer Opteryx, posted 06-11-2008 2:38 AM autumnman has not replied
 Message 244 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-11-2008 4:46 AM autumnman has replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 243 of 306 (470407)
06-11-2008 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by autumnman
06-10-2008 8:43 PM


Re: The Hebrew Eden Narrative Map
It's not hard to find material on how the ancients understood the layout of the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by autumnman, posted 06-10-2008 8:43 PM autumnman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-11-2008 10:32 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 244 of 306 (470414)
06-11-2008 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by autumnman
06-10-2008 8:43 PM


Re: The Hebrew Eden Narrative Map
AM writes
I am reading the Text as the Scriptures present it. You, on the other hand, are trying to defend the indefensible.
Wow AM I had to read this post of yours a few times to see if what you were saying is really what you were saying. You do realize that we have discussed in he past the need to "not' take everything so ABSOLUTLEY LITERAL. I understand the concept of the "interpress", method, but a little common sense goes a long way.
You usually sound so very intelligent in your posts, but here I think you have slipped a gear or two, if you dont mind me saying.
You do realize that simply because a word has a very specific meaning or that a word such as Heaven, Hell, Hades or eternality carry the connotation of "up" or "down", they are only being used in that sense from our perspective, or the ancients perspective. Further, that in these existences, those terms or connotations dont really apply. That there is not any real "up" or "down" in space or the cosmos, these are "relative" terms. That when the scriptures says that Satan was cast down, it doesnt mean that he was literally pushed off a cliff of heaven, or something of that nature. You must be joking here AM, I cant believe a person of you intelligence cannot see this simple point
Furthermore, Hades is not Hell. The greek word for Hell is "Gehenna". The Greek word for Hades is "Sheol", or the grave. These two concepts are used to distinquish two seperate places in the Heavenly or Spiritual realms. Yes even Hell is a part of the Spiritual world.
Contrary to what you say about my positon being indefensible, it is very demonstratable from the scriptures as I have indicated and to which you have now not replied to two posts now that contain that information, in an effort to respond to your alleged contradiction.
Let’s just say, for the sake of your argument, that there is a “Spiritual Realm”. Now, within this “Spiritual Realm” there is Hades {a.k.a. Hell} that exists in the “nether” {a.k.a. beneath, under, lower} part of the “Spiritual Realm”, and there are a number of “heavens” to which one would ascend. “Being cast down into Hades”, would be the terminology used. “Ascending into a particular heaven”, would be the terminology used. Let’s see if a couple examples from the New and Old Testaments confirm this use of terminology:
Again there are no "lower" or "higher" parts to the Spiritual or Heavenly realms. One does not "literally" go down to Hades or "up" to Heaven. These are "Anthropomorphic" expressions and ideas to help us understand another deminsion, that is not common to us. One could say Satan was "C.ast Out" as easily as "Cast down". The meaning was that he was no longer welcome, Vamoose, dirt bag.
In John 3:13 the Greek term for “heaven” is preceded by the article {which serves to distinguish things more exactly}: ton ouranon= the heaven i.e. the abode of God. In 2nd Kings 2:1 the Hebrew term for “heaven” is also preceded by the definite article {when expressing emphasis or definiteness is intended}: hashamaym = the heavens i.e. the abode of God.
Your technical evaluation is very correct here. However, it does not give a specific discription of what is comprised inclusivley in that realm. the rest of the scriptures, to which you have not bothered to touch, help us get a closer discription of that realm.
Yes the "Heavens" are the abode of God, but that is not to say that all areas contain the same entities, Spirits, demons or other realitys. Heaven or the spiritual realms most certainly do contain different locations and areas, as described and pointed out by the scriptures I have offered you. If Jesus was not in the exact prsence of God after his death, as he indicated to Mary, then where was he? Answer, given by Jesus himself, "in Paradise", with the "spirits" and atleast one thief that was on the cross. After his ascension, he went to sit at the right hand of God in his direct presence. This is absolute proof, altleast from the scriptures, that ther is distance and location in those realms.
From the earthly perspective there is obvious indication that the "heavens", those immediatley "above" our heads is upward. Jesus was lifted "up" before thier eyes. I dont think however, that it was necessary for him to keep going upward past the galaxies and entire universe to get to the spiritual realm. This is the case in the instance when he "appeared" to them in the room in which they were gathered. He no doubt simply transported himself from the "spiritual" world to the Physical world, in an instant. The same would be the case on the road to Emmaus. He did not go upward or down wards, He simply "vanished" from thier presences.
While Enoch and Elijah were transported upward initially they were no doubt "spiritually" transported to another deminsion instantly and the NT in Luke 16, and Jesus' words to the thief gives us the specific location of that "heavenly" realm. Even if it was not in the exact prsence of God, he is most certainly in charge of it all.
You would need to demonstrate that there are no different locations and areas in the spiritual realm for your alleged contradiction to have any validity. Since the scriptures clearly indicate there are, you have no case. Definitions of words certainly help us, but they don help your case.
You do not have to acknowledge these “Textual Inconsistencies”, but that does not mean they do not exist; for they clearly and plainly do exist.
I am more than happy to ackowledge these texts, but they present no inconsistencies as you wish and indicate. You are simply over applying the terms and taking them out of any real concept or reality.
D Bertot
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by autumnman, posted 06-10-2008 8:43 PM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by autumnman, posted 06-11-2008 12:36 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 245 of 306 (470534)
06-11-2008 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Archer Opteryx
06-11-2008 2:38 AM


Re: The Hebrew Eden Narrative Map
Hey Archer could you provide a couple.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Archer Opteryx, posted 06-11-2008 2:38 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 246 of 306 (470592)
06-11-2008 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Dawn Bertot
06-11-2008 4:46 AM


Re: The Hebrew Eden Narrative Map
bertot wrote:
Your technical evaluation is very correct here. However, it does not give a specific discription of what is comprised inclusivley in that realm. the rest of the scriptures, to which you have not bothered to touch, help us get a closer discription of that realm.
Yes, my grammatical evaluation is very correct. And it does give a specific description - by employing the definite article {the heaven(s) - where the LORD took Elijah.
But, none of that matters! I understand. The Holy Spirit is guiding you to essentially write your own Holy Scriptures and that is all that matters.
You are talking nonsense. To suggest that the Holy Spirit guided these other writers but that we are not to translate what they wrote is utter nonsense. To suggest that when someone writes “ascended to heaven” they did not really mean “ascended to heaven” is nonsense.
I really do not care. I look at the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures as “ancient literature.” I expect there to be “Contextual Inconsistencies.”
For a Christian to accept that there are “scribal errors” even though the rendering of the English Holy Bible was supposedly “guided by The Holy Spirit, is a contradiction. And then to make the claim that the “autograph” of each book of the Bible was originally without error when no one has ever seen these “autographs” because they no longer exist is an absurd claim.
Bertot, you are listening to the convoluted words of men. If you are fine with that, so be it.
All the best,
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-11-2008 4:46 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-12-2008 12:16 AM autumnman has replied
 Message 248 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-12-2008 8:42 PM autumnman has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 247 of 306 (470698)
06-12-2008 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by autumnman
06-11-2008 12:36 PM


Re: The Hebrew Eden Narrative Map
Autnman writes
Yes, my grammatical evaluation is very correct. And it does give a specific description - by employing the definite article {the heaven(s) - where the LORD took Elijah.
But, none of that matters! I understand. The Holy Spirit is guiding you to essentially write your own Holy Scriptures and that is all that matters.
I was honest my friend when I said your grammarical correctness in those verses was right. However, as I have pointed out in numerous posts now, grammatical correctness in a few verses is not a "comprehensive" overall understanding of a biblical principle. It takes what the scriptures has to say in its entirity on the matter to draw a texttual, scriptural, logical and valid conclusion on the subject at hand.
In this case it is, what constitutes the Heavenly realms and what the scriptures can offer to aid us and assist ourunderstanding of this subject matter.
You are still not understanding that your definitions of these words most certainly DO NOT provide a Specific Description of Heaven, but are in fact very general in character and principle when speking of "heaven" or "Heavens". It takes the Books, Chapters and verses that I have been using as a defense of my positon to get a clearer understanding of those specifics.
Other than complaining about the verse and explanations I offered, you have not touched, referenced or even tried to rebut a single thing I have offered. They most specfically do offer a more refined view of the spiritual world or Heavenly realm.
You are talking nonsense. To suggest that the Holy Spirit guided these other writers but that we are not to translate what they wrote is utter nonsense. To suggest that when someone writes “ascended to heaven” they did not really mean “ascended to heaven” is nonsense.
Sometimes I think you dont pay a bit of attention to what I have offered. I never said we should not translate. Did I not say, that your explanation of those verses was correct. You are now contradicting yourself AM. Also, I never said any verse that mentioned ascension, did not mean "acscended to heaven". You are not paying a bit of attention. What I said was that the rest of the scritures make it much clearer as to what part or location of the Heavenly realm souls were translated to. Far from being nonsense it makes perfect sense.
If it did not you would have already addressed the things I presented, you have not.
I really do not care. I look at the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures as “ancient literature.” I expect there to be “Contextual Inconsistencies.”
That you start with this conclusion may be reasonable, that you end up at the same conclusion after examining the evidence is to me surprising and sad.
For a Christian to accept that there are “scribal errors” even though the rendering of the English Holy Bible was supposedly “guided by The Holy Spirit, is a contradiction. And then to make the claim that the “autograph” of each book of the Bible was originally without error when no one has ever seen these “autographs” because they no longer exist is an absurd claim.
Bertot, you are listening to the convoluted words of men. If you are fine with that, so be it.
You have a misguided and convoluted understanding of what the truth is and how it was revealed to humankind. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a perfect example of how God has kept the principle doctrines and teachings of his, unfettered by human philosophy.
Your thinking is further misguided, because you immdieatley "dismiss" the possibility of providence and intervention in the process. This is strange given the fact that you believe in God
Your estimation that there is contradiction in God allowing scribal errors is not warrented. Often times the people that were vessels of the Word of God or those that had been imparted spirtual gifts, misunderstood the exact nature and reason of the gift. This is indicated in both the OT and NT. In the OT Jonah was a phrophet to Nenivah, yet dispised the very people to which he went to speak. His request to God was why not just destroy them and get it over with. Yet in all this process God inspired Jonah to speak the correct things to this people. God was in complete control and prevented Jonah's feelings to interefer with the basic message to this people.
In the NT, in 1Cor 12 and 13, the people had began to misunderstand the puppose and nature of the spiritual gifts given them. They had began to boast against eachother about the level or status of thier gifts. Yet in all this process there is no indication that the Holy Spirit (God) was not in control of the gifts and still allowed them to fulfill there purposes, the human agent "notwithstanding"
This is you major weakness AM. You cannot see the very reasonable and understandable "hand of God" in the process of his divine revealed truth throught the ages. You start with the preconcieved and unwarrented conclusion that the creator of the universe has not intervined in the affairs of men. The scriptures however, that we have been debating are more than a small indication that such has taken place.
AM here are a couple of other articles for yours and others consideration.
http://www.carm.org/demo/Bible/reliable.htm
Inspired Writers and Competent Copyists - Apologetics Press
Thanks again,
D Bertot
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by autumnman, posted 06-11-2008 12:36 PM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by autumnman, posted 06-12-2008 8:45 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 248 of 306 (470817)
06-12-2008 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by autumnman
06-11-2008 12:36 PM


Re: The Hebrew Eden Narrative Map
AM writes
For a Christian to accept that there are “scribal errors” even though the rendering of the English Holy Bible was supposedly “guided by The Holy Spirit, is a contradiction. And then to make the claim that the “autograph” of each book of the Bible was originally without error when no one has ever seen these “autographs” because they no longer exist is an absurd claim.
Still interested on our direct subject matter of the Hebrew Eden Narrative and ancient texts, I have been trying to doing a little study and research. Here is a article I think you might find of some interest.
The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament
By V. S. Herrell
The Masoretic Text, other than the Dead Sea Scrolls, is the only existing representation of the Old Testament in Hebrew. The oldest fragments date from the 9th century AD, but the oldest complete texts come from the 10th and 11th centuries AD. However, the Hebrew text that it contains is clearly not the original Hebrew, nor even the Hebrew that was in use in the 1st century AD. The Hebrew of the 1st century AD was closely akin to the Greek Septuagint that we have today; this is clear because, although the Hebrew was little used, when it was used in ancient writing it was clearly in agreement with the Greek Septuagint rather than the Masoretic Text. For example, although Philo and Josephus both used the Greek Septuagint, it is believed by most scholars that they frequently had access to a Hebrew Bible and even consulted it on a few occasions. It is through evidence like this that we see that the then current Hebrew disagreed with the Hebrew Masoretic Text of today. In the 1st century, the Christians and all other Greek speaking Israelites, including 1,000,000 of them who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, used the Greek Septuagint. Jesus and His Apostles wrote in Greek and quoted the Greek Septuagint. Of this there can be no doubt. This is a fact that can be confirmed in any encyclopedia or scholarly book on the subject. As we have already pointed out, we know this because the quotations of the Greek New Testament are exactly aligned with the Greek Septuagint, but in sharp opposition to the Hebrew Masoretic Text. There is, however, no reason to believe that they were in disagreement with the Hebrew that was current in the 1st century AD.
What we do know is that toward the end of the 1st century AD and into the 2nd century, the Talmudic, Edomite Jews were actively attacking the Greek Septuagint because it was used by the Christians. They felt that they could discredit the Christians merely for the reason that they used Greek, and at the same time, they began twisting the Hebrew Scriptures to try and disprove that Jesus was the true Messiah. This controversy roared on until at least the 4th and 5th centuries AD. We have already noted how the early Catholics attacked the Vulgate translation of Jerome because it was the first to be based upon Hebrew, and they continued for a very long time to use the Old Latin because it was based upon the Greek Septuagint. One of the most famous examples of how the Jews attacked the Greek Septuagint regarded the word virgin. The particular verse in question is Isaiah 7:14, which reads in the Greek Septuagint:
"Therefore, the Master Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will conceive in the womb, and will bring forth a Son, and you will call His Name Emmanuel."
In the Greek, the word for virgin is parthenos, and it literally means a virgin. In the Masoretic Text, however, the word is almah which means a young girl. The usual Hebrew word for virgin, and the word in every case translated virgin in the Revised Version, is bethuwlah. This verse is quoted from Isaiah in the Christian Scriptures in Matthew 1:23. The Jews attacked the Septuagint from the beginning because they claimed that it had been corrupted by the Christians and that the Christians changed the word in the Septuagint to read virgin instead of young woman so that it would support the reading in Matthew. Of course, the Edomite Jews did not believe that Jesus was the true Messiah; this was why they were attacking the Septuagint. The Jews are the ones who changed the Hebrew, replacing the word virgin with young woman. The early motive of the Edomite Jews was to destroy Christianity, not just the Septuagint. But the Christians did not give in, so the Jews changed their strategy. They instead decided to corrupt the Old Testament and gain control of the Christians by giving them a corrupted Old Testament. By the 3rd century they began collecting every Hebrew manuscript they could, and this was easy to do because the Christians used the Greek Septuagint and cared little for the Hebrew. They then began revising the Hebrew documents to support their Jewish contentions. By the time of Jerome, they began taking the soft approach and gave Jerome their new Hebrew for him to use in his translation. But, as we said before, the Christians at first rejected the Vulgate. So the Jews continued working on their text. From the 1st century to the middle of the 5th century, they called themselves Talmudists; from the 5th century to the completion of their text in the 10th-11th centuries, they called themselves Masoretes.
At the end of this time, all other Hebrew manuscripts except for the Masoretic Text disappeared. The fact is that they were destroyed by the same people who had gathered them up - the Talmudic, Masoretic Jews. Then the Jews began presenting themselves as the diligent preservers of the Hebrew Bible and began deceiving Christians. They no longer blatantly attacked the Septuagint but rather touted themselves as being faithful servants of God. To this end, when the Masoretic Text was finished, they counted every letter and word and contrived mechanisms to insure that the manuscripts would be faithfully transmitted, but they did not bother to account for the editing and corruption that they themselves had been doing for the previous 600-700 years. The early English translations of the Bible were based upon the Latin Vulgate, but the Jews intended to deceive the Christians into translating their Bibles from the Hebrew Masoretic Text. So their new strategy was to win over the stupid Christians, but the old motives were always there. At this time, they had to do an about-face on the issue of virgin. They had learned that the Christians would not accept the Hebrew as long as such blatant blasphemies were contained in it. This deception on the part of the mongrel, Talmudic Jews can be seen in an early Spanish translation of the Masoretic Text. Geddes MacGregor, in his book, The Bible in the Making (pg. 279) writes:
Translations of the Hebrew Bible into various languages, began to appear about that time. In 1422 Rabbi Moses Arragel translated the Scriptures from the Hebrew into Spanish, for the Christian Church and with the assistance of Franciscan scholars, and it is upon that version that the Ferrara Bible, printed in 1553, was based. This famous Spanish Bible was intended to serve the needs of both Jews and Christians. Certain deviations were made in the copies intended for Christian readers. For example, where the copies intended for Jews read 'young woman,' the copies set aside for Christian use put 'virgin.'
Through this means of deception, the atheistic Jews pulled off the grand deception when they convinced the translators of the KJV to use the Masoretic Text instead of the Latin or Greek. Today, the so-called "Christian" world believes in the lie of the Hebrew Bible, even though all Christians for the first four centuries of Christianity universally used the Greek Septuagint or a translation of it, including the Master Jesus the Anointed and His Ambassadors.
When this so-called controversy is examined from a purely textual point-of-view, then we find that the undisputed facts are the following, and I say 'undisputed' because these facts are admitted even by the most staunch supporters of the Masoretic Text.
In regards to the Masoretic Text, the manuscripts date from around AD1000. The manuscripts are admittedly altered from their original form, for vowel symbols have been added and the text has been revised in light of Talmudic tradition. The Masoretic Text is based upon the Hebrew which was rejected by the early Christians, who were the true Israel of God.
In regards to the Septuagint, the oldest manuscripts date to around AD325-350 (though fragments are much older). It was never purposely changed or edited, but the oldest texts of the Septuagint represent the oldest surviving descendants of an ancient translation made of the Hebrew in the 3rd century BC which was considered divinely inspired by most Judeans at that time. It was universally accepted by the early Christians for the first 400 years of Christianity and was used and quoted from by Jesus and His Apostles, who quoted from it under divine inspiration.
Again, the above facts are admitted even by the supporters of the Masoretic Text. What logic, then, is used to justify the use and preferment of the Masoretic Text? Those who use it believe that the Talmudic, Edomite Jews who murdered Jesus Christ are the chosen people of God and therefore the chosen preservers of God's Word. However, we are told the following by Jesus in John 8 regarding these same Edomite Jews who wrote the Talmud and created the Masoretic Text:
"You neither know Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, then you would have known My Father also. ...Where I go, you are not able to come ... You are from below; I am from above. You are from this world, I am not from this world. ... If you were children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham. ... You do the works of your father. ... If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I went forth and have come from God. For I have not come from Myself, but that one sent Me. Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to hear My Word.. You are of your father the Diabolical One, and the lusts of your father you wish to do. That one was a murderer from the beginning, and he has not stood in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, because he is a liar, and the father of it" (AST).
Notice that Jesus said that these Edomite Talmudists were not capable of hearing His Word, they were not capable of doing anything but the works of their father, who was a liar from the beginning. Now this means that in no way were these Talmudic Jews, who later called themselves Masoretes, capable of being divinely inspired "preservers" of God's Word. Because of the Words of Jesus, we must assume this to be a blatant lie.
But even beyond these points, from a purely objective, scientific point-of-view, when we apply the science of Textual Criticism to this controversy, we must again decide in favor of the Greek Septuagint. We remember that the fundamental rule of Textual Criticism is usually that the older the text, the better, and the complete Septuagint version of the Old Testament outdates the complete Masoretic Text version by 650-700 years.
The second rule that we must implement is that not all manuscripts are of the same value. Again, this value issue is clear for these two witnesses: the Septuagint is representative of a 3rd century BC Hebrew text; the Masoretic is representative of a 7th-9th century AD revision of the Hebrew.
Thus, there can be no doubt as to which text is to be preferred. The Septuagint is superior in every way to the Judaized Masoretic Text (V. S. Herrell, The History of the Bible, p. 51-57).
Adam Clark's Commentary
Adam Clarke, an 18th Century Anglican Scholar, makes it clear that the work of the Masoretes is, in reality, a commentary which has been integrated into the body of Scripture. However, Clarke points out that the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text (Masoretic Hebrew) is quite different from the Hebrew of the Patriarchs, (Ancient Hebrew) in which Old Covenant Scripture was originally written.
In the General Preface of his commentary on the Scripture, published in 1810, Clarke writes:
"The Masorets were the most extensive Jewish commentators which that nation could ever boast. The system of punctuation, probably invented by them, is a continual gloss on the Law and the Prophets; their vowel points, and prosaic and metrical accents, &c., give every word to which they are affixed a peculiar kind of meaning, which in their simple state, multitudes of them can by no means bear. The vowel points alone add whole conjugations to the language. This system is one of the most artificial, particular, and extensive comments ever written on the Word of God; for there is not one word in the Bible that is not the subject of a particular gloss through its influence. This school is supposed to have commenced about 450 years before our Lord, and to have extended down to AD1030. Some think it did not commence before the 5th century A.D."
Even without adding to, deleting from, or changing a single letter of the Ancient Hebrew manuscripts of Scripture, pointing gave the Masorete power to dramatically change the meaning of almost any given passage of Scripture, for the prerogative of selecting vowels, is, to a large extent, the prerogative of selecting words! As a crude example, consider how the meaning of an English sentence might be changed by substitution of the word "poor" for the word "pure" - a substitution which may be effected by a simple change of vowels.
Clarke appears to be one of the few commentators who have seen fully the significance of the Masoretic Text - namely, that it is a new "version" of the Scripture, written in a new language. Obviously, Hebrew Scholars have been aware of this fact. They should have called attention to the difference between Ancient Hebrew and the language of the Masoretes, and should have differentiated the two, by use of names such as Ancient Hebrew and Masoretic Hebrew. However, the majority of Hebrew scholars are "Jewish", and thus cannot be expected to be objective and candid regarding such a matter.
Louis Cappel, Hebrew Scholar:
One of the first scholars to investigate the matter was Louis Cappel, a French Huguenot divine and scholar who lived from 1585 to 1658. Consider the following excerpt from the article, "CAPPEL, LOUIS," found in the 1948 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
"As a Hebrew scholar, he concluded that the vowel points and accents were not an original part of Hebrew, but were inserted by the Masorete Jews of Tiberias, not earlier then the 5th Century AD, and that the primitive Hebrew characters are Aramaic and were substituted for the more ancient at the time of the captivity. . . The various readings in the Old Testament Text and the differences between the ancient versions and the Masoretic Text convinced him that the integrity of the Hebrew text as held by Protestants, was untenable. This amounted to an attack upon the verbal inspiration of Scripture. Bitter, however, as was the opposition, it was not long before his results were accepted by scholars."
Further study: On this Rock I Stand; The 'Lost' Books of the Old Testament and The Book of Esther. Changing LINKS masorete.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second Coming of Christ
The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament
Let me know what you think?
D Bertot
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by autumnman, posted 06-11-2008 12:36 PM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by autumnman, posted 06-12-2008 9:47 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 249 of 306 (470818)
06-12-2008 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Dawn Bertot
06-12-2008 12:16 AM


Re: The Hebrew Eden Narrative Map
bertot wrote:
You are still not understanding that your definitions of these words most certainly DO NOT provide a Specific Description of Heaven, but are in fact very general in character and principle when speking of "heaven" or "Heavens". It takes the Books, Chapters and verses that I have been using as a defense of my positon to get a clearer understanding of those specifics.
Actually, the definite article prefix in 2nd Kings 2:1 does in fact provide a “Specific Description of ”The Heavens’,” according to Hebrew grammar. In Hebrew there is no indefinite article”as “a heaven””and the Hebrew term for “heavens” is always dual whether denoting the “sky”, the “universe”, or “God’s abode”, because the Hebrew dual masculine noun for “heavens” denotes “the sky and the universe” and these constitute “God’s abode.”
Remember Jesus telling the thief on the cross, "today you will be with me in paradise". And at another time the scripture says in Acts chapter 2. "I will not leave my sons soul in Hell" (actually Hades in the Greek). But then on his ressurection he told Mary "do not touch me for I have not yet ascended to the Father"., and ofcourse the Father would be in heaven. So Christ "went and preached to the souls that were in prison" (hades).
From Luke 16. Which we do not consder a parable but a true story we get an insight into the Hadean world. Paradise and a waiting torment. This is the only story where Jesus uses proper and specific names, indicating maybe this is real and not a parable. Abraham says there is a great gulf fixed. It is this place to which Christ refered when speaking to the thief on the cross and would explain his statment about not being touched because he had not yet ascended to the father. After his ascentision he then went to sit at the right hand of the father.
Luke 16: 19 thru 31 is indeed a parable. The “rich man” died and was buried in a grave in the earth, i.e. he was sent to “hell” The beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom; i.e. God’s abode.
The “grave” is ade, the nether world, the realm of the dead: Orcus, Hades. “Abraham gave up the ghost” and his body was then put into the cave of Machpelah. Abraham’s spirit went to God & the heavens; Abraham’s body was put into a cave. The rich man’s spirit went with his body to the grave, the ade. The beggar’s spirit was taken to the “bosom of Abraham: to partake the same blessedness as Abraham in paradise; to be borne away to the enjoyment of the same happiness with Abraham.” The Greek term “paradise” {used in the definition of “bosom of Abraham”, as well as in Luke 23:43} does in fact refer to “the abode of God” or “God’s heavenly abode” (Rev. 2.7 “...To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” See also Gen. 2:9; 3:24 & Ez. 28:13; 31:8). This “paradise” does not denote a purgatory, for the tree of life would not be a part of such a low spiritual realm. The River of Life flows from Eden into the paradise that is in Eden, and here the paradise of Eden refers to God’s heavenly abode.
Elijah however, was taken to the hadean world where Abraham his Spiritual father was also.
That is not what 2nd Kings 2:1 states, and as yet your attempt to depict “paradise” as “purgatory” does not have a Scriptural basis to stand on. The LORD took Elijah up into the heavens {a.k.a. paradise, where the angels carried the beggar into Abraham’s bosom; where stands the Tree of Life, and into which flows the singular River of Life). The beggar was not buried or his body put into a cave; angels carried him into Abraham’s bosom. Elijah was not buried or his body put into a cave; the LORD took Elijah up into the heavens.
There is no contradiction here either.
Yes! The contradiction between 2nd Kings 2:1 and John 3:13 remains a Textual Inconsistence even when compared to Luke 16:22, 23 as well as Luke 23:43.
I am sure I am not giving a person with your knowledge any new information, however. But I hope it helps. Or you simply may not agree. I would be interested to know, thanks
I do not agree, as explained above. All the best,
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-12-2008 12:16 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-12-2008 8:48 PM autumnman has not replied
 Message 251 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-12-2008 9:04 PM autumnman has not replied
 Message 253 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-13-2008 2:24 AM autumnman has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 250 of 306 (470819)
06-12-2008 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by autumnman
06-12-2008 8:45 PM


Re: The Hebrew Eden Narrative Map
I will get to this very brief (249)post in a while.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by autumnman, posted 06-12-2008 8:45 PM autumnman has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 251 of 306 (470824)
06-12-2008 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by autumnman
06-12-2008 8:45 PM


Re: The Hebrew Eden Narrative Map
Bertot writes
I am sure I am not giving a person with your knowledge any new information, however. But I hope it helps. Or you simply may not agree. I would be interested to know, thanks
Compliments are like perfume, they should be inhaled not swallowed. The statement above, by myself was made to Jaywill, not yourself. Although I consider you very knowlegable as well Autunman.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by autumnman, posted 06-12-2008 8:45 PM autumnman has not replied

autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 252 of 306 (470826)
06-12-2008 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Dawn Bertot
06-12-2008 8:42 PM


Re: The Hebrew Eden Narrative Map
bertot:
I have read the article by Mr. Herrell:
quote:
The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament
By V. S. Herrell
quote:
The Hebrew of the 1st century AD was closely akin to the Greek Septuagint that we have today; this is clear because, although the Hebrew was little used, when it was used in ancient writing it was clearly in agreement with the Greek Septuagint rather than the Masoretic Text.
The Hellenic Aramaic Scriptures were those texts used by the Sadducees and Pharisees in the Temple. Quite often the Greek Septuagint itself was employed. However, these Hellenic Aramaic and Greek Scriptures were not found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it is the Dead Sea Scrolls that scholars have employed to verify the Masoretic Hebrew Texts. So far the Dead Sea Scrolls (fr. 2nd & 3rd centuries BC) and the consonants of the Masoretic Hebrew Scriptures are identical. I have not read anywhere in my research where the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Consonantal Text {a.k.a. kethib} are different in any way.
Aramaic was the spoken and literary medium employed by Jews in Jerusalem in the first and second centuries BC. Biblical New Hebrew was a dead language at that time, and Modern Hebrew was not brought back as a spoken and literary medium until around 1850 AD. The Masoretic Hebrew kethib was not given vowel points or vocalization marks until the sixth to the ninth centuries AD. The, consonants, were not altered at all according to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Bruce M. Metzger, for the NRSV states:
quote:
“...the vowel points are less ancient and reliable than the consonants” (pg. iv)
Even Bruce Metzger recognizes the reliability of the Hebrew consonants of the Masoretic Hebrew Scriptures.
I would surmise that Mr. Herrell is distorting the facts concerning the Hebrew Consonantal Texts that were current in the first and second centuries BC, and Bruce Metzger as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls attest to Mr. Herrell’s distortions. Another individual who disagrees with Mr. Herrells assertions is Jesus the son of Sirach, who wrote (c. 130 BC):
quote:
“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” (LXX pg. iii)
You might find it informative if you start reading scholarly sources that are not apologetic in nature. There are those scholars who are not trying to prove or disprove anything, but who are merely students of the ancient literary documents we are discussing.
All the best,
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-12-2008 8:42 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 253 of 306 (470861)
06-13-2008 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by autumnman
06-12-2008 8:45 PM


Re: The Hebrew Eden Narrative Map
Actually, the definite article prefix in 2nd Kings 2:1 does in fact provide a “Specific Description of ”The Heavens’,” according to Hebrew grammar. In Hebrew there is no indefinite article”as “a heaven””and the Hebrew term for “heavens” is always dual whether denoting the “sky”, the “universe”, or “God’s abode”, because the Hebrew dual masculine noun for “heavens” denotes “the sky and the universe” and these constitute “God’s abode.”
This ofcourse ignores the very specific fact that there can be different locations within the designation of the heavens. Since the "earth" is in the "heavens" or "universe", and we are not in the direct presence of God, none of the statments in any of the verses would make any logical senses. Each of the writers is indicating a different perspective an location. Hence the expression, "the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handy work...." the writer here is using it to refer to only the universe and our present existence. He is showing specific location as opposed to to the exact existence of Gods "exact dwelling"
Luke 16: 19 thru 31 is indeed a parable. The “rich man” died and was buried in a grave in the earth, i.e. he was sent to “hell” The beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom; i.e. God’s abode.
The “grave” is ade, the nether world, the realm of the dead: Orcus, Hades. “Abraham gave up the ghost” and his body was then put into the cave of Machpelah. Abraham’s spirit went to God & the heavens; Abraham’s body was put into a cave. The rich man’s spirit went with his body to the grave, the ade. The beggar’s spirit was taken to the “bosom of Abraham: to partake the same blessedness as Abraham in paradise; to be borne away to the enjoyment of the same happiness with Abraham.” The Greek term “paradise” {used in the definition of “bosom of Abraham”, as well as in Luke 23:43} does in fact refer to “the abode of God” or “God’s heavenly abode” (Rev. 2.7 “...To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” See also Gen. 2:9; 3:24 & Ez. 28:13; 31:8). This “paradise” does not denote a purgatory, for the tree of life would not be a part of such a low spiritual realm. The River of Life flows from Eden into the paradise that is in Eden, and here the paradise of Eden refers to God’s heavenly abode.
All of this I tentatively agree with, however, you are ignoring the very specfic reason as to why we believe that there is a different location to which Abraham, Christ and others go at death and its not "pugatory". Christ told the Thief, "today you will be with me in paradise" and he further told Mary he had not yet ascended to the Father. You will never avoid the obvious conclusion here, that this location is not the exact presence of God.
This is why there is no contradiction as to the only one that ascended was he that descended, this being Christ himself. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God..." "and the Word became flesh and dwelt amoung us..." John 1.
That is not what 2nd Kings 2:1 states, and as yet your attempt to depict “paradise” as “purgatory” does not have a Scriptural basis to stand on. The LORD took Elijah up into the heavens {a.k.a. paradise, where the angels carried the beggar into Abraham’s bosom; where stands the Tree of Life, and into which flows the singular River of Life). The beggar was not buried or his body put into a cave; angels carried him into Abraham’s bosom. Elijah was not buried or his body put into a cave; the LORD took Elijah up into the heavens.
You are partly correct, because the general discription of the "heavens" in 2Kings does not make clear and specific what the rest of the scriptures do.
Luke 16 is most certainly not a parable. It is the only story Jesus spoke using proper names. The Bible is attributing statements to Abraham in the text, a very specific dialouge between himself and the rich man. Check the other parables to see if any of this is the case.
While you are correct about the initial textual and interpretation of words, the rest of the scriptures will not let your alleged contradiction stand.
Even if it were valid, and I have demonstrated it is not, the statments in John 3 could be considered ones to show "preeminence".
Christ is also demonstrated as the "first born of the dead", even though he was not the first to be ressurected. He is considered, the "first born of all creation", even though he himself is not a created being, but the eternal God himself. These verse simply mean that in these areas his "acts" are preeminent above all others having experinced the same results, being created or resurrected.
Since I said nothing of a purgatoy, which I do not believe in, your statment would have no meaning here. Abraham's very real words and dialouge would contradict the idea of pugatory. There is apperently no chainging you status after you reach this place, according to Abraham.
Yes! The contradiction between 2nd Kings 2:1 and John 3:13 remains a Textual Inconsistence even when compared to Luke 16:22, 23 as well as Luke 23:43.
Perhaps you could help me understand Jesus' words to the thief and Mary after his resurrection. Your assertions just arent cutting it.
D Bertot
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by autumnman, posted 06-12-2008 8:45 PM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by autumnman, posted 06-13-2008 8:25 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

autumnman
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 621
From: Colorado
Joined: 02-24-2008


Message 254 of 306 (470884)
06-13-2008 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Dawn Bertot
06-13-2008 2:24 AM


Re: The Hebrew Eden Narrative Map
bertot:
Perhaps you could help me understand Jesus' words to the thief and Mary after his resurrection. Your assertions just arent cutting it.
Of course my assertions are just not cutting it. You are thinking and writing in accord with your religious doctrine and subsequent superstition. I am reading, translating and interpreting these ancient literary documents according to what they actually say. I really don’t care what you personally believe. Whatever fires your rocket! But until you transcend your nonsensical mystical view of the literary documents at hand and your distorted view of God’s reality all of my assertions will never cut it for you.
The thief and Jesus are hanging on their separate crosses. In Luke 23:42 the thief says to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43. Jesus said unto him, “Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. 46. Jesus then cried out with a loud voice, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit”...and he gave up the ghost.
Jesus commended his spirit into God’s hands. Jesus, like Abraham, gave up the ghost, died and went to heaven {a.k.a. into God’s hands; in paradise), according to the Gospel of Luke. The Gospel of John describes a very different scenario: Jesus spoke from the cross to his mother, and then he said “I thirst.” And finally he says “it is finished” and Jesus gave up the ghost. There is no mention of the thief, paradise, or Jesus commending his spirit to the hands of his Father. John 20:17 “Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father” is completely out of context according to the Gospel of Luke. In Luke 23:46 Jesus says, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. Thus, in Luke, Jesus ghost / spirit is commended into the hands of God. According to John 19:30 Jesus merely states, “It is finished.” And he bowed his head and gave up the ghost. If the scenario described by Luke is correct, at the moment Jesus “gave up the ghost” his spirit was commended into The Father’s hands. But then in John 20:17 Jesus says to Mary, “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father.”
Either Luke is correct, or John is correct. But the two Gospels are not in any state of agreement whatsoever.
I am of little doubt that you can somehow make enough sense of these two contrasted scriptures to fulfill the needs of your religious doctrine and superstition. But to me I see only two very different descriptions of the single act of Jesus “giving up the ghost.” Either Jesus’ spirit went into the hands of the Father after he “gave up the ghost”, or Jesus’ spirit did not go into the hands of the Father after he “gave up the ghost.” I would choose the Luke version of these events. To me John’s version doesn’t even make sense from a spiritual or superstitious point of view.
All the best,
Ger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-13-2008 2:24 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Dawn Bertot, posted 06-13-2008 10:29 AM autumnman has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 255 of 306 (470899)
06-13-2008 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by autumnman
06-13-2008 8:25 AM


Re: The Hebrew Eden Narrative Map
Autumnman writes
Of course my assertions are just not cutting it. You are thinking and writing in accord with your religious doctrine and subsequent superstition. I am reading, translating and interpreting these ancient literary documents according to what they actually say. I really don’t care what you personally believe. Whatever fires your rocket! But until you transcend your nonsensical mystical view of the literary documents at hand and your distorted view of God’s reality all of my assertions will never cut it for you.
You inability to demonstrate a contradiction is being manifested through obvious "frustration" and "anger'. Calm down AM, we are all here to learn, please dont be afraid to learn something, as you are now. I have also learned much from yourself.
Jesus commended his spirit into God’s hands. Jesus, like Abraham, gave up the ghost, died and went to heaven {a.k.a. into God’s hands; in paradise), according to the Gospel of Luke.
To commened his Spirit to God, is simply to turn authority of it over to him. Where God places that Spirit, in what"specfic" location and designation is ofcourse Gods choice.
There is no contradiction between John and Luke. Both are simply pointing out different aspects of the events as they transpired. Due to the statment by Jesus' "Touch me not for I have not yet ascended to the Father". It makes it obviously clear that both Luke and John had a clearer perspective of specific locations of the heavenly realms.
To me John’s version doesn’t even make sense from a spiritual or superstitious point of view.
Ofcourse his statment and version dont make sense, they fly in the face of your alleged contradiction.
Consider the following statement: "In my fathers house there are MANY mansions"
On another less serious note:
This evening AM my responses will not be a quick, due to the fact that today is the sacred "Hulk" day, the release of the incredible Hulk, my favorite super hero. I know what you are thinking, Ohhh my goodness, I am debating with a fellow that thinks the Hulk is real. Set your mind at ease AM, I still believe him to be a fictional character, much like most of your arguments, fictional in nature, ha ha. I have been commisioned and tasked to take the children to the movies. Yes, thats it, the kids. I keep telling myself it for the children.
Now he will be taking on a creature called "Abomination", a creature much bigger and stronger than the Hulk. However, I am sure the Hulk will prevail, being the crazed maniac he is.
Now being the "straight up Nerd" you are, I am sure your favorite super character, is Biclops, (the glasses wearing crime fighter).with his girl friend, "Lois Lame". This being the case you would have no need for real super hero.
Since we have beat the last topic in the ground. I would suggest we move forwrd in the direction of the ancient documents, moving slowly back twords the Eden narrative. Unless you would like to discuss other alleged contradictions, which is fine with me as well. I will get to the last post concering the MT and Septuagint manuscripts as soon as I can.
D Bertot
Edited by bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by autumnman, posted 06-13-2008 8:25 AM autumnman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by autumnman, posted 06-13-2008 12:04 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024