Questions of Reliability and/or Authorship

Brian: 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

bertot writes: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

We seem to have a terminology problem again. God’s abode being of a different realm means to me that it is not “literal = being true to fact, actual, factual.” I can only presume, assume, or make a conjecture.

quote:

---

AM writes:
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.

---

I was employing Rev. 2:7 that figuratively describes Paradise and the tree of life as a biblical representation of the metaphorical and poetic manner in which I interpret the Eden Narrative. I did not realize that anyone seriously accepted the Book of Revelation as a literal account of what was to come. My mistake. I am in agreement with what I hear you saying. What interpretation did I give to Rev. 2:7? Let me go back and see.
On post 36 ICANT had posed this question: And I replied:

quote:

---

AM wrote: 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.”

---

How is it that I am interpreting Rev. 2:7 in your mind?All the best,
Ger

You guys:I have a question regarding the five rivers described in the Eden Text:Acknowledging the natural force of gravity; is it not most natural for four tributaries {a.k.a. smaller rivers} to feed into one larger watershed {a.k.a. river)?But, doesn’t Gen. 2:10 thru 14 describe one great watershed {a.k.a. river} dividing and becoming four smaller watersheds {a.k.a. rivers)?Would this reversal of the natural force of gravity as applied to water not constitute a riddle? So, what do you think?
Ger

ICANTSplit into canals; thanks for that information.So, when Ezekiel refers to Eden as the garden of God and the Mountain of God--sometime before or shortly after the Exile--that makes what kind of sense to you?Why don't you walk me through your interpretation of the two creation accounts, if you wouldn't mind.I'd like to become more familiar with your point of view.Regards,
Ger

ICANT:This is how Ezekiel 28 begins;Ezekiel 28:2 the word of the LORD says to the prince of Yyrus {Heb. ’ = leader/ruler/prince of Tzor} you are a human not a god {Heb. — — = you are a human and not a god.Ezekiel 28:4 By thy wisdom and with thy understanding thou has gotten thee riches, and has gotten gold and silver into thy treasures:Ezekiel 28:7 I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they will draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness.Ezekiel 28:8 They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of those slain in midst the seas.The ruler of Tzor is said to be “a human being” not an angel or a god.
This appears to be in contrast to your statement:I think you are leaping to a conclusion regarding Ezekiel 28:14 and the ‘ = the kerub on account of anointed this he overshadowsThe Hebrew term “kerub” ‘ means “the like of greatness/abundance. It does not denote an “angelic figure.” And it most certainly does not describe the personification of Evil: Lucifer, Satan, Devil.Furthermore, since God created “gravity”, and I presume “water”; how gravity and water interact on planet earth is a much more reliable source of “fact and truth” than an interpretation of a piece of literature that requires one to essentially say, “for God all things are possible.”I will put my trust in “gravity” and “water”.You do whatever makes you happy.Regards,
Ger

ICANT:If you don’t mind I would like to discuss with you the beginning of post 60:

quote:

---

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

---

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that Gen. 1:1 denotes “the first day of creation” and in this “first day of creation Gen. 2:4 thru 4:26” actually takes place. Am I hearing you correctly?When referring to Gen. 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” what do you mean by, “This is a declared statement?”Is Gen. 2:1, “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them,” a declared statement also? So when Gen. 1:5 concludes, “And the evening and the morning were the first day”, that is not really what it should say? According to your interpretation of the Genesis Text, what is supposed to be there is Gen. 2:4 thru 4:26; am I correct?

quote:

---

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

---

You do realize that the feminine plural noun — = generations is never used anywhere in the Hebrew Old Testament to describe brute animal genealogies? Nor is it ever used to describe genealogies of plants, rocks, seas or rivers. So what does, “these are the generations of the heavens and the earth,” refer to? The Hebrew terminology for “the day” is ‘ = in day or at time. It does not specify a 24 hour period. This is precisely where you are specifically suggesting that Gen. 2:4 thru 4:26 takes place in Gen. 1:1 rather than suggesting that Gen. 2:4 thru 3:24 takes place sometime prior to Gen. 2:1 which specifically states, “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.”I find it hard to grasp your interpretation that tends to rewrite the first four chapters of Genesis {a.k.a. ‘).Perhaps if you could answer the questions I have posed above you could help clear up my awkward confusion, and we could continue our discussion; your ideas are wild indeed, but I am interested in discussing them. But I need to take little bites.Thanks,
Ger

ICANTYou ask: Where do you come up with the “Mountain of God” being associated with the “third heaven”?Ezekiel 28 reiterates quite often that this “Prince of Tyrus” was endowed with considerable “wisdom” and “understanding”. With this “wisdom” and “understanding” he, a flesh and blood human being, more than likely figured out how to enter the garden of God”past those metaphorical beings who preserve the way to the tree of life”and from there he apparently made it to the “Mountain of God.” Unfortunately, this Prince of Tyrus used his good sense and fortunate circumstances to bolster his own ego and the riches of his kingdom. And, as we all should know, “Pride goes before a great fall.”At least that is how I see it.Ger

ICANT:Your audacious rearranging of Scripture {Hebrew, Greek, Latin & English} in order to make Scripture fit your mystically imaginative interpretation is delightfully absurd. The very idea that the Hebrew Torah was not composed/scribed or canonized in an appropriate fashion after the Exile is probably more fact than fiction. However, the fact of the matter remains; the Hebrew Torah and the Alexandrian Greek Pentateuch were scribed and translated, and set in the order in which we now find them two thousand four and three hundred years ago. The very antiquity of the Hebrew and Greek canon of the first five books of the Old Testament should inspire far more respect and humiliation than your mystical imaginings are affording them.If one must rearrange the canon of the first five books of the Hebrew Old Testament in order to make sense of them, then does that not essentially state that the Hebrew Torah and the Greek Pentateuch do not make sense? Does not the need to rearrange the canon of the first five books of the English Holy Bible, render the Holy Bible less than Holy? If the first 5 Chapters of Genesis are composed/scribed and canonized in a manner that contradict one another, does that not cast doubt on the entire Scriptural authenticity as well as the Scripture’s authority?I think you may want to rethink your imaginative interpretations of Scripture. When I translate the Hebrew Text of the Eden Narrative and apply my translations to the natural world into which I was born, I do not rearrange consonants, clauses, phrases, verses, or chapters to make them fit what I think they should say. I rearrange nothing; for I deeply respect and am in awe of the very existence of the ancient Scriptures that have somehow been preserved so that I may explore what they are conveying. Whether these ancient Scriptures were “God Breathed”, “God inspired”, or merely composed by “inspired individual human beings”, these ancient Scriptures are in fact our elders and as our elders they deserve all the respect such fore bearers of our civilization should be afforded.By audaciously rearranging Scripture to fit what you think Scripture should say, your self-centered worldview speaks volumes of the contempt you must hold for your ancestors as well as your conception of your Creator.Translate and interpret the ancient Text as it stands, or leave the ancient Text alone altogether. The very idea that it is either “your mystical interpretation” or “God is a liar” is not only the peak of ignorant human arrogance, but is such an absurd statement that only this style of a reply will suffice.Regards,
Ger

ICANT: Gen. 1:1 is written in the Hebrew past tense {Heb. perfect tense}, which denotes “a completed act.” Therefore, Gen. 1:1 is essentially describing that which has already been done, accomplished, finished. For this reason Gen. 1:1 is an introductory verse to that which will follow up to and including Gen. 2:1 where it is clearly stated that God has finished creating the heavens and the earth and all the host of them. Gen. 1:2 is the beginning of the creative process: “So the earth was formless and empty; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. Then the spirit of God was hovering upon the face of the waters.”Gen. 2:1 describes in the Hebrew future tense {Heb. imperfect tense}, which denotes “an incomplete act,” God hovering upon the face of the waters; an act that is in process”the beginning of the beginning.You are in fact “interpreting” the Gen. 1:1 thru 2:3 creation text when you claim that an act of creation was ongoing in between the perfect tense of Gen. 1:1, and the imperfect tense of Gen. 1:2. That is an “interpretation” and a “grammatically poor interpretation” at that. Gen. 2:4 does not in any way shape or form refer back to Gen.1:1, since Gen. 1:1 is composed in the perfect tense”a completed act”and Gen. 2:4 is composed in the Hebrew imperfect/infinitive”an ongoing act. Furthermore, the plural feminine noun toledot = — is derived from the verb yalad = — that is used exclusively to describe the “birthing process” not the “creative process.” The masculine noun yeled = — describes: a child, a son, a boy, a youth, and the feminine noun toledot = — is never used to describe brute animal genealogies, plant genealogies, celestial genealogies. The feminine noun toledot = — is only used to describe human genealogies and never refers to the Heb. verb “to create”, bara’ = ‘.Let me try to describe Gen. 2:4 by emphasizing the verbs “create” and “make”: (The following is not a translation but rather an emphasis) as they are being created”the heavens and the earth”at the time yhwh God made earth and heavens; these are the human genealogies that exist at that time.Read the above carefully and then we can discuss your thoughts.Regards,
Ger

ICANT: You are missing the point. Above I am giving the basic foundation of the feminine plural noun: human genealogies. From this foundation toledot is further applied to generations, families, and races as well as the history or historical record of a family, According to Gesenius Old Testament Lexicon. The Hebrew Eden Narrative”Gen. 2:4 thru 3:24”strictly applies to the creation of the human race = : these are the toledot = human generations of the heavens and the earth. These human generations include you and me, as well as all those who came before and those who will come after us. I suspect you are asking how the Hebrew Perfect Tense is designated in a verb.When only the Pure Stem {Heb. Qal} of the verb is used, as in Gen. 1:1”‘”this Prue Stem always expresses the Past Tense {Heb. Perfect Tense). I suspect you are asking how the Hebrew Imperfect Tense is designated in a verb.When the Pure Stem {Heb. Qal} of the verb is prefixed by abbreviated forms of the personal pronoun or the designation of the participle (_) {referred to as “Preformatives”} this designates the Future Tense {Heb. Imperfect Tense} of the verb; as in Gen 1:2””where the participle prefix _ and the feminine 3rd person singular suffix _ = she directly relates to the incomplete action of the feminine noun = spirit. Thus, the spirit of God she hovers upon the face of the waters. In Hebrew there are only two principle tenses: 1. The Hebrew Imperfect Tense indicates an incomplete action, and this most closely relates to the English Future Tense; 2. The Hebrew Perfect Tense indicates a completed action, and this most closely relates to the English Past Tense.I have made this brief explanation as simple and straightforward as I possibly could. I hope that it gives you the information you have requested.Regards,
GerEdited by autumnman, : repair a quote

ICANT I am trying to share with you that the Hebrew Eden Narrative”Gen. 2:4 thru 3:24”is not a documentation of a prehistoric space and time. The Hebrew Eden Narrative is an allegorical/proverbial/poetic representation of how God created the breathing human animal species. Let me translate Gen. 2:4 so that it reflects this a little clearer:

quote:

---

these human generations of the air and the land as they are created at the time he makes yhwh God earth and heavens

---

Note that no mention is ever made of the “waters”, “seas”, or “aquatic creatures.” Note also that the author makes no mention of the “sun”, “moon”, or “the stars.” The predominant figure throughout the Eden Text is = “the human species. Pay particular attention that Gen. 5:1 thru 3 refer directly to Gen. 1:26 thru 28. No mention is made of the Eden Narrative or the Cain & Abel Text. The reason for this omission of the Eden Narrative and the Cain & Abel Text is that both of these Narratives are allegorical/proverbial/poetic in composition and do not constitute a documentation of a prehistoric space and time. The author of the Eden Narrative and the Cain and Abel Text is imparting “Wisdom Information” that applies to all generations of humanity no matter when they exist. The Phoenician/Canaanite writing system adopted by the Israelites took on its own national character around 850 BCE and became what we refer to as Paleo Hebrew {a.k.a. Old Hebrew). All texts composed in Paleo Hebrew were and are written in Kethib”letter”consonantal script. After the Exile in 586 BCE the Kethib Paleo Hebrew writing system was replaced by the Aramaic New {a.k.a. Biblical} Kethib Hebrew writing system. Documents composed in both Kethib Paleo Hebrew and Kethib Biblical Hebrew are part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Old Testament {a.k.a. Tanakh} documents are “amazingly similar to the Masoretic Kethib Hebrew Torah as well as the Samaritan Kethib Paleo Hebrew Pentateuch.” The following is a quote from post 3 of this thread presented by bertot:

quote:

---

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.

---

Modern Hebrew has nothing whatsoever to do with the “Tense” designations of the Paleo Hebrew Samaritan Pentateuch or the Masoretic Kethib Biblical Hebrew Torah. The “Tense” designations”Perfect & Imperfect”are present in the Kethib Texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as the Paleo Hebrew Samaritan Pentateuch.Your assertion that is not supported by any of the information I have ever come across. Where is it documented that “Biblical Hebrew has no tense at all of any kind”? I would very much like to read that particular article. Furthermore, if that were true, the Alexandrian Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures”regardless of its translation quality”could never have been performed; and the English Holy Bibles based on the Biblical Hebrew Texts would be extremely inaccurate as well.Regards,
Ger

ICANT: you quoted the following: This is what I wrote to you in post 70:

quote:

---

Gen. 1:1 is written in the Hebrew past tense {Heb. perfect tense}, which denotes “a completed act.” Therefore, Gen. 1:1 is essentially describing that which has already been done, accomplished, finished. For this reason Gen. 1:1 is an introductory verse to that which will follow up to and including Gen. 2:1 where it is clearly stated that God has finished creating the heavens and the earth and all the host of them. Gen. 1:2 is the beginning of the creative process: “So the earth was formless and empty; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. Then the spirit of God was hovering upon the face of the waters.”
Gen. 2:1 describes in the Hebrew future tense {Heb. imperfect tense}, which denotes “an incomplete act,” God hovering upon the face of the waters; an act that is in process”the beginning of the beginning.
You are in fact “interpreting” the Gen. 1:1 thru 2:3 creation text when you claim that an act of creation was ongoing in between the perfect tense of Gen. 1:1, and the imperfect tense of Gen. 1:2. That is an “interpretation” and a “grammatically poor interpretation” at that.

---

If you would learn to simply read what I post we could probably move our discussion along a little. You are wrong. And it is individuals like you that are distorting the words that comprise the Hebrew Tanakh, as well as the Alexandrian Greek Septuagint.You, not I, are trying to take the “completed act” described in Gen. 1:1 and turn it into an “uncompleted act” so that you can apply you mystically imaginative interpretation of Gen. 2:4 thru 4:26 between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2.Wow! I wonder why God didn’t think of doing that?Get off your “Holy Spirit inspired” nonsense: Apparently you think you are “a spiritual man” because you think you have been “born of the Spirit of God” and that is what you think gives you the right to disregard the Biblical Hebrew Text and try rearranging the Scriptures to fit you own personal distorted interpretation. Paul the Roman Pharisee has certainly taught you well.Answer me this: Is Gen. 1:1 composed in the “Hebrew Perfect, Completed Act” sense? And, if you admit that it is, and you believe Gen. 1:1 to be the “Word of God” would that not mean that God intended Gen. 1:1 to be composed in that “Completed Act” fashion?Regards,
Ger

ICANT: Gen. 1:1 was completed where it states = “the earth.” Gen. 1:1 employs only the Completed Act of the Pure Verb ‘ = created. Gen. 1:1 is an introductory verse to the 6 Times of creation that follows. That creative process concludes with what is conveyed in Gen. 2:1.I am sure that does not sit well with you, but that is how the Hebrew Kethib happens to read. Gen. 2:4 does not make that claim. That is why you have to rearrange the Text. Try not rearranging the Text, and try not to gloss over any anomalies in the Text you might find. Read the text precisely as it is written and learn from what it conveys.As a hermeneutic key I suggest using what is written in Proverbs 1:6.God’s truth is not found in “words” but rather in that which the words describe. Everyone’s opinions are truly entitled, but opinions do not constitute facts or truth.Regards,
Ger

deerbreh:It is great to have a fresh voice on this thread. As to what you posted: I agree with you completely.Even an interpres translation of any ancient Kethib Hebrew Text is rendered according to the interpretive mindset of the translator. For this reason it is extremely helpful to get as many eyes and minds as possible looking at and interpreting the translation, for the through debate there is a much greater possibility of eventually arriving at the most accurate translation and interpretation of a given text.I look forward to you further insights.Regards,
Ger