Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2017 6:02 PM
331 online now:
Aussie, JonF, NoNukes, Percy (Admin), Tangle (5 members, 326 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,037 Year: 28,643/21,208 Month: 709/1,847 Week: 84/475 Day: 31/53 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5Next
Author Topic:   Hast Thou ENTERED INTO the treasures of the snow?
Jaf
Member (Idle past 1305 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 01-30-2014


Message 46 of 66 (719384)
02-13-2014 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dr Adequate
02-13-2014 10:07 AM


Re: No "interpretation" is required or necessary.
Psalm 135:& whilst wonderful scripture it is no comparison to

"Hast thou ENTERED INTO the treasures of the snow? You are ignoring ENTERED INTO, may I bring that to your attention please and thank you? Can you address these particular two words please, these two words that require no interpretation or enoch's willing assistance, go away enoch, didnt you freaken vanish? Or other versions or scriptures from other books, or other languages. Please in the name of peace love and tranquility to all creatures including inanimate objects, to all stay on topic?

Kind regards

JAF PTL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-13-2014 10:07 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-13-2014 8:31 PM Jaf has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15984
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 47 of 66 (719388)
02-13-2014 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Jaf
02-13-2014 7:47 PM


Re: No "interpretation" is required or necessary.
1. it doesn't say EXACTLY the same thing, it doesn't say ENTER IN to hail, because as my learned friend said, one can observe the pattern in hail without a microscope not so with snow.

So ... what are you saying? The "plain surface reading" of "entered into" ( הֲבָאתָ ) is "observed"? And the "plain surface reading" of "treasury" ( אֹצְרוֹת ) is "pattern"?

And what do you understand by the words "plain" and "surface"? Only there again you seem to have your own idiosyncratic definition.

Me "The quick brown fox jumped over the fence."

You Guys

"The book of Enoch would seem to suggest that said fox (actually a 14 billion year old axolotl) was not at all quick but clever because he in actual fact "darted" (the Greek for this word is darted but the word doesn't exist in Hebrew which makes the bible a lie) UNDER, do you see that UNDER not over the fence, which of course is what not only made him appear quick but also to appear like a fox jumping over a fence.

Editors note, it helps to take a large skull of peyote or mescaline before joining the forum.

Am I right?

No. Especially not about the mescalin, that may be where you're going wrong.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Jaf, posted 02-13-2014 7:47 PM Jaf has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Jaf, posted 02-13-2014 11:31 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15984
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 48 of 66 (719389)
02-13-2014 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Jaf
02-13-2014 8:14 PM


Re: No "interpretation" is required or necessary.
"Hast thou ENTERED INTO the treasures of the snow? You are ignoring ENTERED INTO, may I bring that to your attention please and thank you? Can you address these particular two words please

Certainly. They mean "entered into". They do not mean "observed". This is appropriate to the context, since one may indeed enter into a storehouse ( אֹצְרוֹת ). They do not imply that the author of Job knew anything about the microscopic structure of snow, because of not saying anything remotely like that.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Jaf, posted 02-13-2014 8:14 PM Jaf has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Jaf, posted 02-13-2014 11:16 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7537
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 49 of 66 (719391)
02-13-2014 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Jaf
02-13-2014 7:34 PM


Re: No "interpretation" is required or necessary.
My dear modulous, yes that is precisely what I am saying, did I not clearly convey this position in my OP?

Where is the reference to 'small' or 'microscopic'? Where is the reference to crystals? Or invisible patterns? What does this have to do with preparations for war? What scientific insights can we find in the discussion on lightning in the same passage?

Phew, are you a little slow on the uptake or is this your way of being petulant and pedantic within forum guidelines? I'm just seeking the truth.

It was my way of asking you if you were explicitly saying that the plain reading of a rhetorical question about entering into treasures of snow is that snow has a microscopic beauty that can be treasured.

Now that it's laid out explicitly, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. As far as I can tell, the plain text reading is that there are treasures of snow set aside by YHWH for certain eventualities.

Maybe you are right, and I'm 'slow on the uptake'. So talk me through how your reading is the 'plain' reading.

Enoch, cannon?

Yes, Enoch. A book written by a group more culturally connected to the authors of Job than you or I. I think that makes it a useful resource.

And yes, canon. You know...

The 66 books is Scripture

That canon. Are you suggesting that referring to other canonical books of the 66 or however many one believes there are (and Enoch is canon to some) such as Psalms or the rest of passage in Job is somehow off limits for attempting to understand this single verse you seem to like?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Jaf, posted 02-13-2014 7:34 PM Jaf has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Jaf, posted 02-13-2014 11:36 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply
 Message 57 by Jaf, posted 02-13-2014 11:41 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 344 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(1)
Message 50 of 66 (719392)
02-13-2014 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Jaf
02-13-2014 7:51 PM


Re: heathen perversions of scripture
Jaf writes:

Even better change the language so no one can read it as if that makes some kind of valid and important point. IT DOESN'T!

nope. i believe i said as much here, and earlier in the thread. the idea that "treasures" means "treasuries" is contextual (the word is used both ways in hebrew) based on the verb.

I am left but with no excuse as to believe the Facts, the KJV is the best version in English we've got and all other English versions are in at least some way erroneous some of them are down write satanic its so obvious.

uh... no. the KJV isn't even close to the best translation in english. did you know that the KJV tends to translate the qere ("spoken") instead of the kethiv ("written")? that is, in places where various jewish scribes thought the original hebrew text was in error and wrote their own interpretations in the margins, the KJV translates their suggested readings instead of what's in the source text.

but i would be interested in discussing this argument, if you'd like to start another thread. i really want to know what translations you're reading that are so obviously "down write [sic] satanic", and why you think that.

Plus we have the Greek and Hebrew concordances of every word, we lack nothing, you don't even need to be a fool and waste years learning Hebrew and Greek thinking this is the only way you are going to know the truth

trust me when i say that you cannot begin to approach a text written in a foreign language through the use of root-usage concordances. the language matters; it is far to easy to get lunacy like time traveling CD-ROMs if you're just looking at the concordance and selecting meanings that fit what you want. i wish that thread was a joke.

But Ive seen atheist say such things as Ive mentioned above as if to imply that because they have learned these languages they are far better qualified to discus scripture with some faith head Christian who hasn't, which is arrogance in the extreme not to mention utter rubbish!

i dunno.

you're reporting what someone told you about an english translation in church. i'm talking about what's actually on the page. why do you think faith makes you qualified to discuss an academic subject like translation, or exegesis, or theology? going to church and actually studying the bible are two very different things.

it's sort of like thinking that because you're pretty good at call of duty, that you're more qualified to comment on the state of our various wars in the middle east than a combat veteran who says that war is hell and we should avoid it. do you see the problem here? your point is arrogance, in the extreme. the people who are familiar with the language and contents of the bible in an academic setting, regardless of their belief or disbelief, are far more qualified to comment on its contents than your average bible-believing church-goer.

Edited by arachnophilia, : reddit's got me using the wrong quote codes.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Jaf, posted 02-13-2014 7:51 PM Jaf has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 344 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 51 of 66 (719393)
02-13-2014 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Jaf
02-13-2014 7:47 PM


Re: No "interpretation" is required or necessary.
Jaf writes:

Me "The quick brown fox jumped over the fence."

You Guys

"The book of Enoch would seem to suggest that said fox (actually a 14 billion year old axolotl) was not at all quick but clever because he in actual fact "darted" (the Greek for this word is darted but the word doesn't exist in Hebrew which makes the bible a lie) UNDER, do you see that UNDER not over the fence, which of course is what not only made him appear quick but also to appear like a fox jumping over a fence.

modulus was establishing a linguistic context for the idiom. it doesn't actually actually matter if all the sources are canon or not; it's just evidence for how the phrase was used.

and it's not reversing what the bible says. at all. in fact, it's clear to see how they all use the idiom in the same manner.

as for what you're reading, i don't know. because even in english, even in your preferred KJV, it doesn't seem to say what you think it says.

Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Jaf, posted 02-13-2014 7:47 PM Jaf has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Jaf, posted 02-13-2014 11:18 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Jaf
Member (Idle past 1305 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 01-30-2014


Message 52 of 66 (719409)
02-13-2014 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dr Adequate
02-13-2014 8:31 PM


Re: No "interpretation" is required or necessary.
Observed goes without saying as it clearly does mean that.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-13-2014 8:31 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
Jaf
Member (Idle past 1305 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 01-30-2014


Message 53 of 66 (719411)
02-13-2014 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by arachnophilia
02-13-2014 9:29 PM


Re: No "interpretation" is required or necessary.
Still, it's unacceptable and off topic nevertheless.

It says what it says and it means what it means.

Edited by Jaf, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by arachnophilia, posted 02-13-2014 9:29 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

    
Jaf
Member (Idle past 1305 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 01-30-2014


Message 54 of 66 (719412)
02-13-2014 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dr Adequate
02-13-2014 8:28 PM


Re: No "interpretation" is required or necessary.
My dear whats your name again? Yes that is precisely what I am saying, did I not clearly convey this position in my OP? Phew, are you a little slow on the uptake or is this your way of being petulant and pedantic within forum guidelines? I'm just seeking the truth.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-13-2014 8:28 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by roxrkool, posted 02-13-2014 11:40 PM Jaf has responded
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-14-2014 12:08 AM Jaf has responded

    
Jaf
Member (Idle past 1305 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 01-30-2014


Message 55 of 66 (719414)
02-13-2014 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Modulous
02-13-2014 8:39 PM


Re: No "interpretation" is required or necessary.
Mr Speaker this man is inciting and flaming....

To enter into the treasuries of the show clearly means "observing the unseen microscopic wonders of the snow unseen until microscopes because clearly for Job to do so with out being the all seeing God, he would have to be microscopically small and or possess a microscope and God clearly knew Job did not possess a microscope. I suppose you could say God bragging about the wonders of the snow to Job wouldn't mean diddley to Job, but to us it has immense importance 5000 years later.

Edited by Jaf, : No reason given.

Edited by Jaf, : spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Modulous, posted 02-13-2014 8:39 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

    
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 508 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(1)
Message 56 of 66 (719415)
02-13-2014 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Jaf
02-13-2014 11:31 PM


Re: No "interpretation" is required or necessary.
You are not seeking the truth. You are seeking validation.

Learn the difference.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Jaf, posted 02-13-2014 11:31 PM Jaf has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Jaf, posted 02-13-2014 11:52 PM roxrkool has not yet responded

    
Jaf
Member (Idle past 1305 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 01-30-2014


Message 57 of 66 (719416)
02-13-2014 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Modulous
02-13-2014 8:39 PM


Re: No "interpretation" is required or necessary.
The microscopic beauty is the treasure. If snow wasn't so microscopically beautiful you guys would have an argument but laugh out loud, it is.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Modulous, posted 02-13-2014 8:39 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-14-2014 12:01 AM Jaf has responded

    
Jaf
Member (Idle past 1305 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 01-30-2014


Message 58 of 66 (719418)
02-13-2014 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by roxrkool
02-13-2014 11:40 PM


Re: No "interpretation" is required or necessary.
Sincerely my friend I need no validation save the very words God breathed, they will never pass away, you can huff and you can puff etc.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by roxrkool, posted 02-13-2014 11:40 PM roxrkool has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15984
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 59 of 66 (719421)
02-14-2014 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Jaf
02-13-2014 11:41 PM


Re: No "interpretation" is required or necessary.
The microscopic beauty is the treasure.

... except when the Bible uses the same word for hail. And the wind. And the sea.

If snow wasn't so microscopically beautiful you guys would have an argument

The boot is on the other foot. What has happened is that because you happen to know that snow looks pretty under a microscope, you've decided that in this particular half-sentence (but not in the other half of the same sentence, or anywhere else in the Bible, or anywhere else in the entire corpus of Hebrew literature) the word אֹצְרוֹת should mean "microscopic beauty".

This is entirely ad hoc. You don't point to the other half of the sentence and say: "Look, the Bible is wrong, it says that hail has microscopic beauty!" do you? No, it means "microscopic beauty" when you want it to and doesn't when you don't.

Except that, y'know, you do not have powers to change the meaning of Hebrew words. The Bible says what it says.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Jaf, posted 02-13-2014 11:41 PM Jaf has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Jaf, posted 02-14-2014 12:15 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 62 by Jaf, posted 02-14-2014 12:18 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15984
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 60 of 66 (719425)
02-14-2014 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Jaf
02-13-2014 11:31 PM


Re: No "interpretation" is required or necessary.
My dear whats your name again? Yes that is precisely what I am saying ...

Then mocking you further seems unnecessary.

... did I not clearly convey this position in my OP? Phew, are you a little slow on the uptake or is this your way of being petulant and pedantic within forum guidelines? I'm just seeking the truth.

It was just very hard to believe that anyone, even a creationist, could say something so absurd.

So, just to make it quite clear to everyone else reading this thread. According to Jaf:

* The plain surface reading of "entered into" is "observed", and not "entered into".
* The plain surface reading of "treasury" is "pattern", and not "treasury".

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Jaf, posted 02-13-2014 11:31 PM Jaf has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Jaf, posted 02-14-2014 12:20 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Prev123
4
5Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017