Questions of Reliability and/or Authorship

Admin: bertot and myself have a lively discussion going in a thread that has just past the 300 post limit. It is our hope that you will enable us to continue our debate in the New Thread I have briefly described below.Questions of Reliability and/or Authorship
The Scholarly & The Religious DebateWhat constitutes a Reliable Source Hebrew Text? And what translation of a particular Hebrew Text might be regarded as “The Word of God”?The Samaritan Pentateuch as compared to the Masoretic Hebrew Torah present variations in the Kethib {letter} consonantal Text. Which Kethib Hebrew Text is the most accurate and/or reliable? Is the Alexandrian-Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures equal in content and authority to either the Samaritan Pentateuch or the Masoretic Kethib Hebrew Torah, Prophesies & Scriptures?These are the focal questions this thread would like to explore from as many points of view as might be afforded: Scholarly, Religious, Linguistic, Historical, etc.The point of this thread in not to come up with an answer to the above questions, but rather to shine as bright a light as possible on this aspect of Biblical Research as well as Religious Doctrine.If Admin allows; let the discussions begin.All the best,
Ger

bertot:This is a quote from the article you posted:
I am going to “bold” the terminology I would like you to pay close attention to.

quote:

---

Textual critics have found that these ancient copies of Old Testament books are amazingly similar to the Massoretic text. Indeed, they serve as proof that the Old Testament text has been transmitted faithfully through the centuries. As Rene Paché concluded: “Since it can be demonstrated that the text of the Old Testament was accurately transmitted for the last 2,000 years, one may reasonably suppose that it had been so transmitted from the beginning” (1971, p. 191). What’s more, if copies of the Old Testament in the first century were sufficiently accurate for Jesus and the apostles to quote them and teach from them, and we possess Old Testament manuscripts that date back to (or before) the time of Christ, then Christians should feel extremely confident about the condition of the Old Testament in the 21st century”at least as confident as was Jesus (cf. Matthew 22:31). Eric Lyons, 'Apologeticspress.org'., Inspired writings and compotent copyist

---

Rene, states: we possess Old Testament manuscripts that date back to (or before) the time of Christ. Being in possession of Old Testament Kethib Hebrew manuscripts is one thing; translating these Kethib Hebrew manuscripts is quite another.In the article above, regarding the Masoretic Kethib Hebrew Text, the very specific term “transmitted” is employed three times in a row. Now here is a quote I made on the previous thread, post # 302:

quote:

---

“Translated” is the operative word here. “Translations” of ancient texts do not necessarily convey in an accurate fashion what the Source Text is conveying. Let’s use the word “Transmitted” meaning, “copied”, then I will be in agreement with you.

---

The Samaritan Pentateuch is a complete, Paleo Hebrew Kethib rendering of the Hebrew Torah.
Plus:
Read the article you just sent to me.

quote:

---

AM wrote: If the vowel pointing of the Masoretic Text is questioned, then all translations based on that vowel pointing are being questioned. That is not a bad thing. All translations of the Kethib need to be questioned, for they all cannot be “correct”. Do you see what I am saying? Deciding what “interpretive translation” is in fact “the Word of God” will depend upon the Religious Doctrine adhered to by the person doing the deciding.There is not a worldwide consensus regarding what “interpretive translation” of the Kethib constitutes “the Word of God.” That is a fact!

---

I do not even know what you are trying to say in the above statement???? Please explain. I have no “bias” because I do not “start out with the preconceived idea that ”everyone’ else has an agenda or doctrine to defend’. I start out by interpres translating the Kethib Source Hebrew Text. Then I compare the various interpres translations that may or may not work in the Kethib Source Hebrew Text to the expositor translations performed by other scholars. That is how I perform my research. What the Kethib Source Hebrew Text conveys is what the Text conveys. It is as simple as that.

quote:

---

AM wrote: Is this the above quote you are referring to? quote:------------------------------------------------------------------
It is very difficult for any scholar who embraces a certain religious doctrine to translate a source text in a manner that does not conform to his or her religious doctrine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a quote from the “Adam Clark” article you shared:

​

quote:------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the majority of Hebrew scholars are "Jewish", and thus cannot be expected to be objective and candid regarding such a matter.-----------------------------------------------------------------
How is it that he is saying anything different that what I conveyed.

---

I do not apply the interpres method of translation in an “extreme way.” I first and foremost translate the Hebrew Kethib Source Text. Then, after the Hebrew Kethib Source Text is interpres translated, then and only then, do I begin the “interpretation” of the Hebrew Kethib Source Text. During this exegetical/interpretive process is where “narrative context” and “a little common sense” is employed. This exegetical/interpretive process is not employed during the interpres translation of the Hebrew Kethib Source Text.That is as clear, concise, and honest as I can explain the method I employ when translating the Hebrew Kethib Source Text into English. I hope you might finally understand. The rest of the Scriptures can be used to interpret the Kethib Hebrew Eden Narrative when the common usage of a Hebrew term or terminology is trying to be established. But attempting to employ the context of the rest of the Old and New Testaments to force the Kethib Hebrew Eden Narrative to fit Rabbinic Judaism or Pauline Christianity does nothing but treat the Kethib Hebrew Eden Narrative in the same fashion as the Masoretic Hebrew Scholars who added the vowel points, vocalization marks and punctuation to the Kethib Hebrew Source Text in the 6th to the 9th centuries CE. Remember what Adam Clark said above:

quote:

---

However, the majority of Hebrew scholars are "Jewish", and thus cannot be expected to be objective and candid regarding such a matter.

---

I believe I have answered your question above: But, if you need me to address these particular question, then copy and past them to the beginning of your next post.All the best,
Ger

bertot wrote: You want me to provide you with an “English, exact translation with no inserts of any kind” of Gen. 2:4 thru 7. Did I understand you correctly?The following is “A” English translation of Gen. 2:4 thru 7 employing the most common usage of the bound morphemes, words, and verbal clauses according to the BDB, Gesenius, and Brill Lexicons of the Old Testament, and the Hebrew grammar as described in Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar and Davidson’s Analytical Hebrew Lexicon.

quote:

---

2:4 these human generations the heavens and the earth as they are created at time he makes yhwh God earth and heavens.

​

2:5 then all plants the field before they be in earth and all herbage the field not yet they sprout for not he cause it to rain yhwh God upon the earth and humanity was not to work the ground.

​

2:6 but a mist it ascends from the earth and irrigates the whole surface the ground.

​

2:7 then he devises yhwh God the human species dust from the ground and he breathes in its noses breath of mortal life and it becomes the human species in regard to a breathing animal.

---

Now, perhaps we can discuss what the Kethib Eden Narrative Text might be conveying in these first four verses.All the best,
Ger

bertot wrote: That is not what I am reading in the article. Again I quote the article:

quote:

---

EVIDENCE OF RELIABLE BIBLE TRANSMISSION
The Old Testament: Textual critics have found that these ancient copies of Old Testament books are amazingly similar to the Masoretic text. Indeed, they serve as proof that the Old Testament text has been transmitted faithfully through the centuries. As Rene Paché concluded: “Since it can be demonstrated that the text of the Old Testament was accurately transmitted for the last 2,000 years, one may reasonably suppose that it had been so transmitted from the beginning” (1971, p. 191).

---

I agree with the article. I disagree with you. And where in the article is the expression “necessarily convey” employed? I’m going to go back up to post #3 and read it again. If I find the clause “necessarily convey” I’ll let you know. Well, the clause “necessarily convey” is not in the article, so I guess it is a quote of mine. There is nothing ambiguous about the clause “necessarily convey”.However, I must tell you, you are wearing me down and out. If you want to claim that the English terms “translated” and “transmitted” are synonymous, that is fine, but I can not continue a conversation with someone who does not even acknowledge the definitions of the English words I am employing.You, my friend, can believe anything that makes you feel good, right or righteous. I really do not care. I have no response to this! You already know what the text says, so I will not waste my time. Navigation was the difficulty back then that made a daylight assault on the beaches necessary. The landing craft had no navigation aboard. At least that is what my historical understanding of the situation of D-day was.All the best,
Ger

bertot: Good to hear from you. I will attempt a coherent reply to you post. “The possibility of divine intervention” is impossible to qualify or quantify. “Divine intervention” belongs in the “personal belief” category. I personally do not rule it in or out when translating and interpreting ancient texts. With God all things are possible. That, my friend, is the difficulty with ruling “divine intervention” into the composition of an ancient Narrative. Too much can be read between the lines. If a difficulty is discovered in the text, that difficulty will not be examined from all rational, or reasonable perspectives, because “with God all things are possible,” so the difficulty is merely glossed over. Only after the Narrative has been thoroughly translated and a number of exegetical possibilities have been accepted as probable interpretations, then a discussion of “the possibility of divine intervention” should most certainly be examined in a thorough, rational, and reasonable manner. Again, First the Kethib Hebrew Text must be translated as it is composed. Translating any Kethib Hebrew Text is not an easy or completely accurate process. Once a couple of translations appear to be reasonably accurate, and a couple interpretation appear to be probable, then a discussion as to whether the Kethib Hebrew Text is either ”God’s Word”, God inspired words, or the inspired word of men, or if they are words that convey nothing but utter nonsense. Prior to having a reasonably accurate translation and a probable interpretation, the discussion regarding the Kethib Hebrew Text as being ”God’s Word’ is premature. As these theological and spiritual concepts emerge we should indeed discuss them. Whatever direct and indirect conclusion we reach as we interpret the Kethib Hebrew Narrative should be based on what the translation of the Kethib Hebrew Narrative indicates the Kethib Hebrew is conveying. We should try not to inject a new passage into the Kethib Hebrew Text to try to make sense of what we are finding. Let’s first find what we find and be as clear as we possibly can that our translation of the Kethib Hebrew Text is as accurate as we can make it. Once this is accomplished, then let’s try to interpret what the author”God or man”is trying to communicate to us over the expanse of many thousands of years. The Kethib Hebrew Text should tell us the answer to these questions. This physical existence is a very small and limited aspect of existence: Is this not an experiential, observable, and objective fact? Let’s find out together. I do not know. Let’s find out together. How to continually humble myself before Deity; how to embrace and rejoice in my mortality”from birth to old age; how to embrace and rejoice in my death; how to consciously comprehend that life is forever, even though mortality is but a short while. I hope so, my friend.
Ger

bertot: I have translated Gen. 2:4 thru 2:20. This should establish enough of a context up to this point for us to discuss this portion of the Hebrew Eden Text. We do not need to resolve any issues we discover, merely discuss the text and what we think the author is conveying up to this point. I think it important to point out that any contradictions or anomalies we find in the content of these verses were, in my opinion, deliberately composed, and should not be perceived as “errors in the text”, but rather as intentionally and strategically placed wisdom riddles”Pr. 1:6 “the words of the wise go together with their riddles. This may help us cipher the meaning of the text.The following is “A” English translation of Gen. 2:4 thru 20 employing the most common usage of the bound morphemes, words, and verbal clauses according to the BDB, Gesenius, and Brill Lexicons of the Old Testament, and the Hebrew grammar as described in Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar and Davidson’s Analytical Hebrew Lexicon.

quote:

---

2:4 these human generations the heavens and the earth as they are created at time he makes yhwh God earth and heavens.

​

2:5 then all plants the field before they be in earth and all herbage the field not yet they sprout for not he cause it to rain yhwh God upon the earth and humanity was not to work the ground.

​

2:6 but a mist it ascends from the earth and irrigates the whole surface the ground.

​

2:7 then he devises yhwh God the human species dust from the ground and he breathes in its noses breath of mortal life and it becomes the human species in regard to a breathing animal.

​

2:8 so he establishes yhwh God an enclosure in Eden from ancient time and he put there the human species that he devised.

​

2:9 and he caused to sprout yhwh God from the ground all trees desirable to sight and good for food and tree the life in midst the enclosure and wood the knowledge good and bad.

​

2:10 and a river it flowed from Eden to irrigate the enclosure and from there it divides and becomes regarding four beginnings

​

2:11 designation the first piyshon it surrounds the entire land this chaviylah which there the gold

​

2:12 and gold this land it is beneficial there the bedolach and stone the shoham.

​

2:13 and designation the river the second gichon it encompasses the entire land kush.

​

2:14 and designation the river the third Tigris it which goes eastward Assyria and the river the fourth it Euphrates.

​

2:15 so he leads yhwh God the human species and he guides it through enclosure Eden in regard to serving her and in regard to preserving her.

​

2:16 so he lays charge yhwh God upon the human species in regard to saying from all trees the enclosure partake you must partake.

​

2:17 but from wood the knowledge good and bad not you partake from a portion of it for at time you partake from a portion of it die you will die by human moral authority.

​

2:18 then he says yhwh God not good it is the human species in regard to its separation I will make for it a helper as opposite to it.

​

2:19 so he devises yhwh God all creatures the field and together with all flying creatures of the heavens and be brings near unto the human species to see how it encounter regarding them and all which it encounter regarding them the human species breathing animals it was their designation.

​

2:20 and it encounters the human species their designations regarding all the carnivores and regarding flying creatures the heavens and regarding all herbivores the field but for the human species not found a helper as opposite to it.

---

All the best,
Ger

ICANT asks regarding AM's translation:

quote:

---

AM trans.: 2:4 these human generations the heavens and the earth as they are created at time he makes yhwh God earth and heavens.

---

The English terminology "human generations" serves to translate the Hebrew feminine plural noun — used "especially in genealogies=account of a man and his descendants" BDB. Since the Heb. Eden Narrative is primarilly focused on "the human archetype" the "generations" being referred to would be "human generations."Did that answer your question?Regards,
Ger

I would like to discuss a few things regarding the first 20 verses I have translated first before moving on to the rest of the Narrative.Below is one subject I would like to get your response to.bertot wrote: Gen. 2:4 is an interesting verse in that both phrase ”a’ - “these are the human generations of the heavens and the earth as they are created” - and phrase ”b’ -“at the time God makes the earth and the heavens” describe God bringing into being “the heavens and the earth”, and yet nowhere in the Eden Narrative does the author ever mention God creating the “fish and other aquatic creatures.” However, the author does make rather prominent mention of water in the form of “rain” {Gen. 2:5); “mist” {Gen. 2:6); and “five rivers” {Gen. 2:10”14). Therefore, it is rather interesting that the author chose not to mention God creating the “fish and other aquatic creatures.”.What do you guys make of this omission of the creation of the “fish and other aquatic creatures.”?To me, this omission of the creation of the “fish and other aquatic creatures.” places the focus of the entire Eden Narrative on the metaphorical creation of “the human generations of the heavens and the earth.”I'm going to take my wife out to have some lunch, and should be back by this afternoon. I'll talk to you when we get back.All the best,
Ger

ICANT: According to the English Language, "mankind" and "humankind" are both referring to "the human spcies".

quote:

---

autumnman writes:

​

Since the Heb. Eden Narrative is primarily focused on "the human archetype" the "generations" being referred to would be "human generations."

---

I am sure you actually believe what you wrote above, and that is fine. However, the "male and female" = "the human species" described in Gen. 1:27 is the same = "the human species" mentioned in Gen. 2:7, 8, 15 & 3:24. If you believe otherwise, that is your perogative. However, the Kethib Hebrew Text {Samaritan & Masoretic} do not agree with your interpretation. There is only one creation being described by two different creation accounts.Gen. 1:2 thru 1:31 is an ancient Hebrew cosmology. Gen. 2:4 thru 3:24 is quite likely an ancient Hebrew Wisdom Poem describing the creation of all generations of human consciousness. I am aware from your statements above that you do not see it that way, but fortunately the Kethib Hebrew Text does not support your interpretation.Regards,
Ger

ICANT:

quote:

---

autumnman writes:According to the English Language, "mankind" and "humankind" are both referring to "the human spcies".

---

No kidding! You have got to be kidding! There are actually three: = humanity, a human, a man; = a person {male or female), a man; = a human, man, mankind. According to the Samaritan Pentateuch the Hebrew term used in Gen. 2:24 is “ = a person {male or female), a man”. According to the Masoretic Hebrew text the Hebrew term used in Gen 2:24 is also “ = a person {male or female), a man”.

quote:

---

autumnman writes:There is only one creation being described by two different creation accounts.

---

The “facts” as you call them, do not match because you are not reading the Kethib Hebrew Texts in a proper fashion. Gen. 1:2 thru 1:31 is an ancient Hebrew cosmology. Gen. 2:4 thru 3:24 is an ancient Hebrew Wisdom Poem. There are two very different styles of composition at work within these two different creation accounts. The “facts” tend to “match” much more closely when one realizes that there are two different styles of composition.

quote:

---

autumnman writes:but fortunately the Kethib Hebrew Text does not support your interpretation.

---

I would stay with whatever makes you feel happy. No! God is not a liar. God has no reason to lie; God is God. Have you ever given any thought to the possibility that your reading of the “eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” and the “death” being described is where the problem may be? Give it some thought.Regards,
Ger

ICANT wrote: Even if Gen. 1:2 thru 1:31 is a post-Exilic Priestly text that still does not change the style of composition. Even if Gen. 2:4 thru 3:24 is a pre-Exilic 'J' text, that also does not alter the 'Wisdom Poem' style of composition. 50+ years of studying these ancient Hebrew Kethib Texts is impressive. However, if humanity is not fully created in God's image {a.k.a. "has become as one of us"} until Gen. 3:22 in the Eden Narrative, the "trees" sprouting in Gen. 2:9 would correspond with Gen. 1:11 & 12; the beasts of the field and fowl of the air of Gen. 2:19 & 20 would correspond with Gen. 1:24 & 25 -- only the aquatic creatures are missing. I have already explained my understanding of that omission. According to the Heb. Kethib Eden Narrative {Samaritan & Masoretic} humanity {Heb. } is sent from Eden "to work the ground from which it was taken" in Gen. 2:23 & 24, and this corresponds with the purpose for its creation mentioned in Gen. 2:5 "to work the ground." And at this point God would be blessing them and saying "Go forth and multiply" as stated in Gen. 1:28.The "death" described in Gen. 2:17 comes to pass when Cain kills Abel: Cain puts Abel to death by human execution, and since the Hebrew term for "Cain" denotes a "wooden spear" it appears as though a fabricated "article of wood" was used to kill a = "human being."But stay with what you are most comfortable with.Regards,
Ger

ICANT wrote: You are not hearing what I am attempting to share with you. First of all, there will always be differences between the two different creation texts, because they are two different narratives written in two different styles, focusing on two different aspects of creation.If you will notice, Gen. 1:11 & 12 describe grasses and trees being brought forth from the earth prior to there being a sun and a moon to indicate seasons, days, and years upon the earth. This is a deliberate contextual anomaly. The author knew quite well that without the sun and the moon grasses and trees would not be able to grow. The author is saying, “Do not try to take this narrative factually or literally.”Gen. 1:11 states, “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree...”
Gen. 1:12 states, “And the earth brought forth grasses, and herbs yielding seed after his kind, and the trees yielding fruit...”God did not plant seeds! God told the earth to bring forth grass, herb, tree, and the earth complied. How is that different than Gen. 2:9 where it states, “And God caused to sprout from the ground all trees...”? Gen. 1:12 states that, “the earth brought forth ... the trees” because God told it to, and Gen. 2:9 “God caused to sprout from the ground all trees”.The two different narratives are not identical, but they are similar. Plus, the human archetype that is “formed of dust from the ground” in Gen. 2:7, is taken and put into Eden”away from the ground from which it was taken”in Gen 2:8. There is no human archetype on planet earth when the trees are caused to sprout in Gen. 2:9. There is no human archetype on planet earth when the earth brings forth grasses, herbs, and trees in Gen. 1:12.Are you able to see the correlation? The two Narratives are not supposed to be identical, but there is a relationship.

quote:

---

autumnman writes:the beasts of the field and fowl of the air of Gen. 2:19 & 20 would correspond with Gen. 1:24 & 25

---

The Eden Narrative purposely omits any mention of any water-established aquatic creatures. I have already explained my perspective as to why the author chose this omission”to focus the narrative on the creation of human consciousness. Gen. 2:7 is the initial step of God’s creation of humanity and human consciousness on the earth. The next step is God putting the human archetype within the garden in Eden, which is not part of planet earth or the ground from which the human archetype was initially taken (see Gen. 3:23 “God sent it/him forth from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which it was taken.”). Compare Gen. 3:23 to Gen. 2:5 where it states that the human archetype was “to work the ground.”If the human archetype is not fully created in the garden of Eden - thus not yet part of the earth - until Gen 3:22, and does not return from the garden of Eden to the earth “to work the ground from which it was taken” until Gen. 3:23 & 24, then the flying creatures of the air and the beasts of the field are formed from the ground, Gen. 2:19 & 20, prior to there being a human species on planet earth. This “woman” you claim is mentioned in Gen. 2:22 is in fact the manifestation of the “helper” mentioned in Gen. 2:18 and 20. Am I correct? So, according to your interpretation of the text, this “helper/woman” was not found among the beasts of the field and flying creatures of the heavens. Does that actually make sense to you?Furthermore, the Hebrew masculine noun for “helper” denotes “strength” in its verb root, whereas the Hebrew feminine noun for “woman” denotes “weakness” in its verb root. Why would God literally “build” a weak helper called woman? God would not!It is also important to point out that the Hebrew terms for “male and female” are never used anywhere in the Hebrew Eden Narrative. This is an extremely important fact that is commonly disregarded by those who attempt a “pseudo-historical” rendering of the two different narratives. God is a “spirit” and does not have a physical “image”, therefore, God’s image would be non-corporeal; alluding to the root of the Hebrew term for “image” which denotes “a shadow”. The terminology of “after God’s likeness” denotes “God’s creative abilities” since the Hebrew term literally means, “to imagine, form an idea, think, devise.” Read what I wrote above and perhaps some of this confusion will be cleared up. Furthermore, let’s go on the assumption that God got his stories straight, but it is we who have not yet been able to comprehend what God is conveying.I will respond to your other post regarding "death, Cain, Abel" in a bit.Regards,
Ger

ICANT: Let me start at the conclusion of your post: I tend to agree with you. I have a little saying, “The truth is I lie; do you believe me?” I am not claiming that what I have found in my research is “the truth.” I am claiming that what I am sharing with you is what I have found in my research. I do not claim to “be correct” or “an authority.” I am merely trying to share with you and bertot, and anyone else who may be interested that which I have discovered in the Kethib Hebrew Eden Narrative. If I can learn to convey what I have discovered in a coherent fashion I think you would find the discovery as amazing as I find it. I am still working on the “conveying” part of the equation. One of these days I may figure out how to properly explain what I find so astonishing in the Kethib Hebrew Eden Narrative. I agree with you and the same goes for me. Although not exactly the same, I too have been exposed to similar experiences. I guess that’s just part of the experience. I agree with the statement that, “we have been brainwashed by religion.” More than any other social and cultural force, “religion” essentially manipulates human language and with language, human thought and one’s worldview are manipulated also. The Spirit of God is in all of our noses {Job 27:3 ...and the spirit of God is in my nose). Wherever the “Spirit of God” dwells so there dwells God, and anyone who realizes this fact, they and The Father are One. So, Yes! Jesus was/is God in the flesh and he and the Father were/are One. No! Jesus was not lying. The following quote you gave from the Septuagint does not correspond with either the Samaritan Pentateuch or the Masoretic Kethib Text.

quote:

---

LXX 3:24 and caused him to dwell over against the garden of Delight,

---

quote:

---

Samaritan 3:24 and he drives out = the human species and he establishes from ancient time to the garden of Eden the krubiym...

---

quote:

---

Masoretic 3:24 and he drives out = the human species, and he establishes from ancient time to the garden of Eden the krubiym...

---

I do not know what Hebrew Text was employed in the 3rd century BCE when the Septuagint was rendered, but it is clear that neither the Samaritan Pentateuch or the Masoretic Kethib Hebrew Text correspond to what the Septuagint claims in Gen. 3:24.Back to your question:
Eden is not of planet earth, and the five rivers describe it as not being of planet earth. Yes! That is my contention. Yes! That is my contention.

quote:

---

LXX 15 And the Lord God took the man whom he had formed, and placed him in the garden of Delight, to cultivate and keep it.

---

The Septuagint Greek translation is again incongruent with both the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Masoretic Kethib Hebrew Text:

quote:

---

Samaritan 2:15 so God leads = the human species and he guides it through the garden of Eden in regard to serving her and preserving her.

---

quote:

---

Masoretic 2:15 so God leads = the human species and he guides it through the garden of Eden in regard to serving her and preserving her.

---

The two-fold command God issues in Gen. 2:16 & 17 is God leading and guiding the human species through the Garden/Paradise of Eden and showing the human species how to “serve” Paradise and “preserve” Paradise. That is what the Samaritan Pentateuch and Masoretic Kethib Hebrew Text describe.The phrase in the LXX, “took the man whom he had formed,” is only found in Gen. 2:8 according to the Samaritan and Masoretic Texts. Some other realm is more like it. Perhaps God’s abode and Eden are one and the same. At least that is what is indicated to me. Only metaphorical and symbolic “trees” exist in Eden/God’s abode. Real trees grow out of the ground of planet earth. Gen. 2:9 makes no mention of plants and grasses; only “trees, wood, articles of wood, gallows” all of which are the applications of the Hebrew masculine noun . The “first-un-named” river flows from God’s abode/Eden, and is therefore most likely “The River of Life.” From Eden “The River of Life” flows into the Garden/Paradise where exist = the human species, the tree of the life, and wood the knowledge of good and evil, and after nurturing Paradise, The River of Life divides and becomes four beginnings: 1. Surrounds the land to the East/spring. 2. Surrounds the land of the South/summer. 3. Flows eastward of Assyrian which is West/autumn of the Holy Land. 4. Is the Euphrates, the river of the North/winter.Eden is therefore the Sacred Central Mountain of God from which all life flows. All five of the rivers are metaphorical, figurative, and symbolic in nature. None of these five rivers are “real”, for the Tigris and Euphrates rivers do not flow from a single watershed, as well as many other reasons.Let's try to get some of this ironed out before too much starts cluttering the thread. What do you think?Regards,
GerEdited by autumnman, : No reason given.

ICANT: Your point is?????I see you did not address”

quote:

---

AM wrote: The phrase in the LXX, “took the man whom he had formed,” is only found in Gen. 2:8 according to the Samaritan and Masoretic Texts.

---

”which is not in the Samaritan Pentateuch that dates to the 5th century BCE:

quote:

---

Samaritan Pentateuch, Gen. 2:15 reads: so God leads = the human species and he guides it through the garden of Eden in regard to serving her and preserving her.

---

And you also did not address”

quote:

---

AM wrote: The two-fold command God issues in Gen. 2:16 & 17 is God leading and guiding the human species through the Garden/Paradise of Eden and showing the human species how to “serve” Paradise and “preserve” Paradise. That is what the Samaritan Pentateuch and Masoretic Kethib Hebrew Text describe.

---

The Hebrew Tanakh documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls support the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Masoretic Kethib Hebrew Old Testament. The Date of the origin of the Samaritan Pentateuch dates to the 5th century BCE. The Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures dates to the 3rd century BCE. The following is a quote from post 3 of this thread by bertot:

quote:

---

EVIDENCE OF RELIABLE BIBLE TRANSMISSION The Old Testament: The Dead Sea Scrolls serve as strong evidence for the integrity of the Old Testament text. Prior to 1947, the earliest known Old Testament manuscripts went back only to about A.D. 1000. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Bible scholars have been able to compare the present day text with the text from more than 2,000 years ago. Textual critics have found that these ancient copies of Old Testament books are amazingly similar to the Massoretic text. Indeed, they serve as proof that the Old Testament text has been transmitted faithfully through the centuries.

---

quote:

---

AM wrote: Eden is not of planet earth, and the five rivers describe it as not being of planet earth.

---

Let’s start with Revelation 2:7 “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” Reasonable reality also supports the reasoning of such a position. Because the author {God or whoever} wrote these texts for our ancestors and for us. God uses the actually Euphrates river as a border of the Promised Land when speaking to Abram in Gen. 15:18 “Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.” Using a different Euphrates river in Gen. 2:14 would not make any logical sense, since as far as our most ancient ancestors were concerned there was only one “great river, the river Euphrates.” You appear to be missing the concept of “authorship” and “time of composition”, as well as “the audience” these texts were intended to reach, touch, and inform.Regards,
Ger

ICANT: The date of origin of the Samaritan Pentateuch came from:

quote:

---

Data For The Sigla of the BHS, by R. I. Vasholz: Samaritan Pentateuch; Date Of Origin, 5th B.C.

---

quote:

---

Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed.Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

---

In Gen. 2:15 the verb rendered “took” is — which means “to take” in a variety of applications: take in hand, take along, take from, take to, select, choose, receive, take up, fetch, lead, conduct, capture, carry off. BDBThe above verb, “took”, is a perfectly good rendition. I chose “lead or conduct.”In Gen. 2:15 the verb rendered “put” is which means: to lead, to guide. BDB The verbal clause = and he guides him is rendered in your example “and he put him. Your example is derived from the verb = “to rest in a variety of applications, one of which is “to put. There is in fact another verb that some scholars employ in this verbal clause, it is meaning “to deposit” in a variety of applications, one of which is “to place. These two more orthodox renditions of Gen. 2:15 are in fact quite questionable since in Gen 2:8 God had already or syncopated = put, place, set the human archetype into the Garden in Eden.I have employed the verb which means: to lead, to guide. BDB because it is also applied in the sense of ”giving instruction, giving a command, laying charge upon” which is precisely what occurs in the following verse, Gen. 2:16. The concept of “serving Paradise” denotes being a good steward of this Holy Environment; this does not mean to begin forcing it to meet one’s own personal desires, but rather to live in a state of harmony with Paradise. The concept of “preserving Paradise” is set forth in the Two-Fold command God issues in Gen. 2:16 & 17, and when this “preservation process”, i.e. God’s commands, are not followed, Paradise is lost.The Hebrew verb I have rendered “serve” is ‘ which literally means in this context: to serve as a subject in the same manner as one would serve God (BDB 713). The Hebrew verb I have rendered “preserve” is which literally means in this context: to keep as to preserve as one would preserve a covenant with God. No! I know you are reading all of Revelation as if it is literally describing actual events that will truly come to pass some day. I do not read Revelation in that supernatural-oriented, mystical fashion. If your interpretation of the Revelation Text is in fact correct, what we are discussing really amounts to naught, nothing, zip. When Jesus finally returns I will surely go into the lake of fire, and you will be able to enjoy life with your God without the likes of me to clutter up a perfect world.As to your question: That is like asking me, “Where is God’s abode?” The Holy Mountain of God is everywhere. The Holy Mountain of God is a metaphorical reference to the place where all life emanates and where all life returns. Whether this Holy Mountain is called Eden = “pleasure”, or Horeb = “desolation”, or Sinai = “my wilderness”, it is understood as the Holy Mountain of God. Most ancient cultures have their God reign from a High Place. There is generally an actual mountain that exists within the region in which those people reside, and that mountain would symbolically represent that Holy High Place of God; there is the actual cult symbol”the actual mountain” and there is the reference of the symbol”God’s Divine Abode. Well, I’m glad I can still amaze someone. I thought I had lost the talent. Let me amaze you again: What you are implying makes utter nonsense to me. It may make perfect sense to you, but other than what I have written, I have no response to what you have conveyed in the above quote. From trying to perceive the Bible from your perspective”which is somewhat difficult for me”I find “God’s road map” that you are describing as extremely confusing, contradictory, and confusing.” I am not saying that you are “wrong”; I am merely saying that I don’t get what you are getting out of what you are explaining. I’ll do my best to keep trying. I am enjoying our discussions insightful and enjoyable. Regarding your questions concerning Gen. 1:9; I can only respond with another question at this time: Do you literally accept that the earth brought forth grass, herbs, and trees prior to there being a sun and a moon? If you do take Gen. 1:11 & 12 literally even though the sun and the moon did not yet exist, there is no way I can reply to your questions regarding Gen. 1:9.Insofar as Gen. 10:25 and Peleg existing when the earth/land was divided, appears to be stating that the land of Peleg’s father was divided between Peleg and his brother Joktan. At least that is how I interpret the verse.Regards,
Ger