|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Questions of Reliability and/or Authorship | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
To ICANT and AM,
I think this is exacally what we were looking for at this point. Thank you ICANT for stepping up to the plate with the Hebrew imput and other information. I know AM appreciates it as well. I think I will set back and observe this discussion until such time as I see an appropriate time to jump in. This is a very interesting discussion so far, especially the way you two are approaching it. Outstanding!! D Bertot Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
autumnman Member (Idle past 5044 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
ICANT wrote:
In Genesis 2:9 the trees pleasant to sight and good for food God made to grow out of the ground. No seed in ground. In Genesis 1:11, 12 everything came from their seed that was in the ground. 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: Genesis 2:19 God formed every beast and every fowl of the air out of the ground. In Genesis 1:21 water creatures from the water and also every winged fowl. Fifth day. VS 24 earth brought forth the living creature after his kind. etc. Sixth day. In one place the fowl come from sea and other they are formed from earth. Big difference. 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.
Genesis 2:7 man formed from dust of ground. Before any animal or fowl. 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.
Genesis 2:22 woman was made from rib taken from man. 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.
Genesis 1:27 God created man in His image after His likeness. 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.”
Man and woman were both created at one time on the sixth day after all animals, fowl, and water creatures. One man made before animals other after animals. One woman made from rib other just created at same time man no rib could be involved. Now if this is talking about the same man and woman in 1:27 and 2:7 and 2:22 the Bible is not the word of God. If the Bible is the word of God then it has to be talking about two different men and two different women or God is a liar, and can't get His stories straight. 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 Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
autumnman writes: 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 I know there will always be differences as they are two different events taking place at two different times. There is no way to mesh them into one event, although that is the method put forth by most Bible students.
autumnman writes: 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". It is kind of hard to know where you are coming from in Genesis 1:11, 12. As you have not given your interpretation of them yet. I only have the LXX to go by which says:
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the herb of grass bearing seed according to its kind and according to its likeness, and the fruit-tree bearing fruit whose seed is in it, according to its kind on the earth, and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth the herb of grass bearing seed according to its kind and according to its likeness, and the fruit tree bearing fruit whose seed is in it, according to its kind on the earth, and God saw that it was good. According to its kind on the earth. Seed kind already on the earth. These two verses plainly state the seed was already on the earth and the seed is where everything came from. Where did those seed come from? LXX Genesis 2:9 says:
And God made to spring up also out of the earth every tree beautiful to the eye and good for food, and the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of learning the knowledge of good and evil. No seed is mentioned.
autumnman writes: There is no human archetype on planet earth when the trees are caused to sprout in Gen. 2:9. So since the man was put in Eden to keep the trees and plants and grasses and etc. He was not on the planet earth. So are you saying Eden was on some other planet? If so how did God plant the trees and all the other stuff in it? How did the river flow from Eden and water all the face of the earth?
autumnman writes: 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. So it is your contention that the man was not complete in Genesis 2:7. Yes/No. It is your contention that Eden was on some other planet or place. Yes/No. Please explain what the man was supposed to cultivate and keep.As stated here: 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. If Eden was not on the planet earth how did the man dwell over against it?
LXX 23 And God said, Behold, Adam is become as one of us, to know good and evil, and now lest at any time he stretch forth his hand, and take of the tree of life and eat, and so he shall live forever” 24 So the Lord God sent him forth out of the garden of Delight to cultivate the ground out of which he was taken. 25 And he cast out Adam and caused him to dwell over against the garden of Delight, and stationed the cherubs and the fiery sword that turns about to keep the way of the tree of life. autumnman writes: 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." So was Jesus God in the flesh as He claimed when He said I and my Father are One? Yes/No Was Jesus lying when He said, "If you have seen Me you have seen the Father"? Yes/No
autumnman writes: 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 know God got it right because He was there. We have just been brainwashed by religion to the point we can't read simple sentences and understand them. I have been told for 45 years that I am crazy with what I believe about what Genesis says about creation. I have been admonished by my college professors and brethren of like faith as well as those of other faith's. As far as eternity goes it really makes no difference what I believe. God is true and every man a liar. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
autumnman Member (Idle past 5044 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
ICANT: Let me start at the conclusion of your post:
God is true and every man a liar. 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.
As far as eternity goes it really makes no difference what I believe. I agree with you and the same goes for me.
I have been told for 45 years that I am crazy with what I believe about what Genesis says about creation. I have been admonished by my college professors and brethren of like faith as well as those of other faith's. Although not exactly the same, I too have been exposed to similar experiences. I guess that’s just part of the experience.
We have just been brainwashed by religion to the point we can't read simple sentences and understand them. 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.
So was Jesus God in the flesh as He claimed when He said I and my Father are One? Yes/No 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.
Was Jesus lying when He said, "If you have seen Me you have seen the Father"? Yes/No No! Jesus was not lying.
If Eden was not on the planet earth how did the man dwell over against it? The following quote you gave from the Septuagint does not correspond with either the Samaritan Pentateuch or the Masoretic Kethib Text.
quote: quote: quote: 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. So it is your contention that the man was not complete in Genesis 2:7. Yes/No. Yes! That is my contention.
It is your contention that Eden was on some other planet or place. Yes/No. Yes! That is my contention.
Please explain what the man was supposed to cultivate and keep.
As stated here: quote: The Septuagint Greek translation is again incongruent with both the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Masoretic Kethib Hebrew Text:
quote: quote: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.
So since the man was put in Eden to keep the trees and plants and grasses and etc. He was not on the planet earth. So are you saying Eden was on some other planet? 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.
If so how did God plant the trees and all the other stuff in it? 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 .
How did the river flow from Eden and water all the face of the earth? 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,Ger Edited by autumnman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
autumnman writes: quote: The JPS MT says:
15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. If I am not mistaken serving her and preserving her would be taking care of the needs of the garden whatever they were. If I am not mistaken for man to dress and keep the garden would be taking care of the needs of the garden whatever they were. The LXX says cultivate and keep it. If I am not mistaken that means to take care of the needs of the garden whatever they were.
autumnman writes: 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. Since that was 1000 years prior to Masoretes starting their work between the seventh and tenth centuries AD. It stands to reason that they were privy to manuscripts that was much older than the ones used by the Masoretes. The Septuagint was done by 6 scribes from each tribe of Israel. They would have used the best available copies of the day as is bore out by the DSS.
autumnman writes: Back to your question:Eden is not of planet earth, and the five rivers describe it as not being of planet earth. Do you have a scripture for this belief or just your belief. In other words what is the reasoning for such a position?
autumnman writes: 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. So is your reasoning that it has to be metaphorical because the Tigris and Euphrates rivers are not as described in Genesis? My question is, Why would they be the same. In Genesis 1:9, & 10 all the water was in one place and all the land was in one place. As in the scientific pangea. Since the earth was divided in the days of Peleg by God, why would everything be in the same place today as it was in the beginning? God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
autumnman Member (Idle past 5044 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
ICANT:
If I am not mistaken serving her and preserving her would be taking care of the needs of the garden whatever they were. If I am not mistaken for man to dress and keep the garden would be taking care of the needs of the garden whatever they were. The LXX says cultivate and keep it. If I am not mistaken that means to take care of the needs of the garden whatever they were. Your point is????? I see you did not address”
quote:”which is not in the Samaritan Pentateuch that dates to the 5th century BCE: quote: And you also did not address”
quote: ICANT wrote: Since that was 1000 years prior to Masoretes starting their work between the seventh and tenth centuries AD. It stands to reason that they were privy to manuscripts that was much older than the ones used by the Masoretes. The Septuagint was done by 6 scribes from each tribe of Israel. They would have used the best available copies of the day as is bore out by the DSS. 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: quote: Do you have a scripture for this belief or just your belief. 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.”
In other words what is the reasoning for such a position? Reasonable reality also supports the reasoning of such a position.
So is your reasoning that it has to be metaphorical because the Tigris and Euphrates rivers are not as described in Genesis? My question is, Why would they be the same. 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.”
Since the earth was divided in the days of Peleg by God, why would everything be in the same place today as it was in the beginning? 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 Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
autumnman writes: which is not in the Samaritan Pentateuch that dates to the 5th century BCE: I don't know where you got that date from. The study of the DSS dates the Samaritan Pentateuch during the second generation of the Maccabees. That would be 164 BCE to 63 BCE. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint are more agreeable than the Samaritan Pentateuch and the MT. To the point some thought the Samaritan Pentateuch was translated from the Septuagint. The DSS agrees with the Septuagint in places where the MT disagrees with the Septuagint. My copy of the Masoretic text says:
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. autumnman writes: Your point is????? My point was what is the difference when the LXX and the MT says man was to take care of the garden?
autumnman writes: And you also did not address”
quote: So God took the man on a personal tour and explained his duties. Please explain what you mean by "serve" and "preserve" if it does not mean dress and keep it.
autmnman writes: quote: ICANT writes: Do you have a scripture for this belief or just your belief. 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." So where do you suppose this Paradise of God to be? Would it happen to be here:
quote: New heaven, New earth, New Jerusalem, river of life, with the tree of life on both sides. Yep sounds like it is on earth to me.
autumnman writes: 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 never cease to amaze me. The earth was divided in the days of Peleg. This was around 2204 BC that the continents shifted to where they are today. Abraham lived some 392 years later. So yes everything in his day was as it is today.
autumnman writes: 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. I believe the Bible is God's road map for man from the cradle to the grave on earth and beyond to the eternity that awaits everyone ever conceived. It is suficient to reach, touch, and inform all men until today and until Jesus returns. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
autumnman I had some questions I wanted to ask but did not want to add them to my last post as it was getting long.
Was all the water in one place at one time as stated in Genesis 1:9? Was all the land mass in one place at one time as stated in Genesis 1:9? Was the earth divided in the days of Peleg as stated in Genesis 10:25? God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
I think I have found a spot here where I could interject a questions in this discussion by you two very talented fellows. Given the idea that you (AM) believe this is "mostly" figurative and poetic and ICANT has forceabley argued that it could be a very real story and real setting here on earth, would it not follow that the same author of the narrative (Moses)and the rest of book of Genesis percieved and contemplated as a real actual story? In other words the rest of the book and author dont appear to think it was simply a Hebrew wisdom poem, with no basis of actuality regarding Adam and Eve, etc. Who would be in a better position to determine its literary content than the author himself (Pentatuch).
Why would God set up angels to block the entrance to a place where they could not get back to anyway. Assuming Eden is not on earth and they were banished to earth. Do you think Eden is the same place Jody Foster went to in Contact?., Ha Ha Dont spend alot of time on this, because I do not want to interrupt you fellows dialouge, as I am enjoying it greatly. Sometimes it just takes two people with such knowledge of things to make it flow like a river, very good stuff fellas. D Bertot Edited by bertot, : No reason given. Edited by bertot, : No reason given. Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
The Septuagint was done by 6 scribes from each tribe of Israel. Which, people should be aware of, is a legend began by Aristeas. As you know 6 x 12 is 72, but there's an older legend based on Exodus 24:1-9 where 70 elders went with Moses to receive the tablets from Yahweh. So it makes sense that the first translation into Greek (which technically should only be applied to the Greek Pentateuch)should be carried out by 70 elders.
They would have used the best available copies of the day as is bore out by the DSS. Which contradicts the fact that the Septuagint was one of the poorest translations of the OT known to man!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Brian writes: Which contradicts the fact that the Septuagint was one of the poorest translations of the OT known to man! Thanks for your opinion but the folks who have been comparing it to the DSS have a different opinion. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
autumnman Member (Idle past 5044 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
ICANT:
I don't know where you got that date from. The study of the DSS dates the Samaritan Pentateuch during the second generation of the Maccabees. That would be 164 BCE to 63 BCE. The date of origin of the Samaritan Pentateuch came from:
quote: ICANT wrote: My copy of the Masoretic text says:
quote: 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. BDB The 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.
ICANT asks: So God took the man on a personal tour and explained his duties. Please explain what you mean by "serve" and "preserve" if it does not mean dress and keep it. 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.
So where do you suppose this Paradise of God to be? Would it happen to be here: Revelation 21 No!
New heaven, New earth, New Jerusalem, river of life, with the tree of life on both sides. Yep sounds like it is on earth to me. 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:
So where do you suppose this Paradise of God to be? 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.
You never cease to amaze me. The earth was divided in the days of Peleg. This was around 2204 BC that the continents shifted to where they are today. Abraham lived some 392 years later. So yes everything in his day was as it is today. 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.
I believe the Bible is God's road map for man from the cradle to the grave on earth and beyond to the eternity that awaits everyone ever conceived. It is suficient to reach, touch, and inform all men until today and until Jesus returns. God Bless, 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.
autumnman I had some questions I wanted to ask but did not want to add them to my last post as it was getting long. Was all the water in one place at one time as stated in Genesis 1:9? Was all the land mass in one place at one time as stated in Genesis 1:9? Was the earth divided in the days of Peleg as stated in Genesis 10:25? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
autumnman Member (Idle past 5044 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
Brian:
Which contradicts the fact that the Septuagint was one of the poorest translations of the OT known to man! I agree with you. The Hellenic Jews that performed the Alexandrian-Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures were definitely influenced by Hellenic/Greek mythology. Thus, the Greek-style myth of Adam and Eve came into being and has since been accepted as the Authorized Version of the Hebrew Eden Narrative. Good to hear from you,Ger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
ICANT writes: New heaven, New earth, New Jerusalem, river of life, with the tree of life on both sides. Yep sounds like it is on earth to me. AM writes: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. Really AM be serious here. Are we to assume that YOU and YOU alone have the right to decide what should be taken literally or figurative in passages. There is no reason to assume that REV 21, could not be considered as literal at some point in the future. You have a nact for setting up what you want as literal and figurative and assuming that all should consider as such because you translated a word here or there. It takes more than the translation of a word to determine the literal or figurative nature of a verse or context. Simply because you do not like or find contradictory, from your perspective the idea of Hell, does not make it not real. One can certainly percieve these concepts and interpretations of words as literal or figurative, but as I said it takes the rest of the word of God to determine the validy and literal or figurative standpoints. Example, when ICANT asked you where paradise (Eden)was you immediatley qouted Rev 2:7. Now from your perspective you automatically set this up as a literal place, even if it encompasses the whole of God (everything and everywhere), so to speak. However, when ICANT quotes REV 21, you immediatley chastise him for considering it as literal. Why the double standard here and where did you get the idea that only you should decide what is literal and figuraive?
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. Why would the literalness of Rev amount to nothing, naught and Zip? Why would where you spend eternity have anything to do with the "value" of the text. This quote seems to emotionally charged with no logical sense behind it. D Bertot Edited by bertot, : No reason given. Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
autumnman Member (Idle past 5044 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
bertot writes:
Really AM be serious here. Are we to assume that YOU and YOU alone have the right to decide what should be taken literally or figurative in passages. There is no reason to assume that REV 21, could not be considered as literal at some point in the future. You have a nact for setting up what you want as literal and figurative and assuming that all should consider as such because you translated a word here or there. It takes more than the translation of a word to determine the literal or figurative nature of a verse or context. bertot, my friend: I am sharing with you my personal opinion. I don’t have the right to decide anything for anyone else. So you disagree with me. Wow! That’s a revelation.
Simply because you do not like or find contradictory, from your perspective the idea of Hell, does not make it not real. So, show me Hell and then Hell will be real. Better yet, ask you God to show me Hell, and while He’s doing so maybe he can clear up this thing about Him being kind to the unthankful and the evil.
One can certainly percieve these concepts and interpretations of words as literal or figurative, but as I said it takes the rest of the word of God to determine the validy and literal or figurative standpoints. If that is how you comprehend all of these separate yet canonized text, then that is your personal prerogative. Good for you. If that works for you, then go for it. I will rarely if ever agree with that mystical interpretation of these ancient Hebrew and Greek texts. But that should come as no surprise by now.
Example, when ICANT asked you where paradise (Eden)was you immediatley qouted Rev 2:7. Now from your perspective you automatically set this up as a literal place, even if it encompasses the whole of God (everything and everywhere), so to speak. However, when ICANT quotes REV 21, you immediatley chastise him for considering it as literal. Why the double standard here and where did you get the idea that only you should decide what is literal and figuraive? Give me a break here, my friend. I did not set Eden up as a “literal” place. You must have misread what I wrote. Furthermore, I have only my opinion; I do not have the idea that only I should decide what is literal and figurative. I am sharing with you guys my personal opinion based upon the research I have performed, but I have never claimed to be an authority or always correct. If you disagree, share your disagreement and your reasons for disagreeing. That should not be so hard.
Why would the literalness of Rev amount to nothing, naught and Zip? Why would where you spend eternity have anything to do with the "value" of the text. This quote seems to emotionally charged with no logical sense behind it. My personal opinion is that the NT Book of Revelation is not a literal account of things that are to come to pass. That is my personal opinion. If I am wrong it appears as though when Jesus finally returns he is going to cast me right into the lake of fire. I guess we’ll find out when all that comes to pass.All the best, Ger
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024