Questions of Reliability and/or Authorship

This should be very interesting, there Cromagnon Puss. Ill get to it after work tonite. That is unless I happen to see one on the way to work darting in front of my car. Im all excited just waiting for your speciemens. These will be alive or frozen correct, like the 5000 year old iceman, correct?D Bertot

D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

AM writes: This not quite what I am saying. I am asking if the Hebrew syntax and specifics will "allow" this technical venture. If it is translated literally, will it truley "violate" the hebrew grammar and force it to say something totally different.Would not the scholars that translated it have "known" that an obvious literal translation would have been out of the question? It appears that most if not nearly all are saying that the specifics are OK to proceed with a literal.I am simply asking what it will allow, I am not pushing or advocating my personal beliefs at this point. Comments like "you are free to believe what you want" are not necessary, due to the fact that A. We already know this and B. My goal is to find out from more than one person versed in Hebrew if the literal is OK. Feels good has nothing ot do with it. Is it acceptable to translate it as literal, yes or no. Did all those scholars actually get it wrong or were they proceeding in an accurate and valid direction? I dont believe the author is describing any transition on the the scale you are suggesting. You are reading this overwhelming transitional scale into the text and trying to make it fit your theorys about "reality" and evolution.It is very easy for a person or God to refer to something like humanity or mankind even before it is in exsistence on a large scale, "and he called them/it "Adam", even if there were only two presently. His designation is anticapatory of the entire human race beginning with Adam and Eve. Whats wrong with this type of translation and interpretation. Again I ask the question. What would be the significance of 130 years verses 100, 150, 200, 500 hundred and so on. Not seeing it as "arbitrary" does not make it, not random at best, especially with your translation and interpretation. If everything else is so significant from a "reality" standpoint in the narrative, why not these seemingly arbitrary numbers? What does that have to do with the facts and reality. I thought we werent initially interested in personal opinons as much as what the text says. Are you believing here what makes you "feel good" and leaving real objectivity behind? Lets try this one more time AM. Reality is a product of creation. Creation is a product of God. Creation is an intervining "act" of God into physical reality. These properties are symbiotic in nature and design and cannot be seperated from any reality. No one is asking you disregard "reality" only to recognize that intervention is a part of reality both in nature and the scriptures.Gods "established reality" in nature does not have to always correspond directly and abosolutely with every aspect of what is conveyed in the scriptures, even in the Eden narrative.. For example, established reality would suggest that trees take a very long time to mature, yet in Genesis it only took and instant in some places. further humans dont typically live 900 years until God intervines to make it so.Your method dismisses any possibility of the divine and intervention at the outset. God has given you more than the initial reality, he has given you his word, to which you commit so much time and effort. However, if you want to believe that nature is all there is, so be it, Its not, you are simply trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, as I indicated above. Its not necessary for every "detail" to correspond exacally in every way to the physical world and this is what you are pushing, advocating and working so hard to accomplish. This statement reminds me of that movie,"the best little whore house in Texas" and it governor, charles Durning, singing and dance, tipping his hat and his favorite line was "do alittle side step lead them on".You are correct AM "Evolution" is a fact. However, Darwinian biological evolution is a theory and a bad one. Get your statements correct Governor.On the other hand what would be the purpose of letting things evolve over millions of years when you could accomplish it in an instant. Did God need to watch it progress? Is it worse because it did not. The purpose of creation was the human soul and its habitation, not the strickly physical parameters. "What shall a Man profit if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul, or what shall he give in excahnge for his soul." "What is man that thou art mindful of him, or the son of man that thou accompany him"Theres you answer AMD BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Bertot writes:.
I was exhausted last evening when I returned home, so I will try and get to your last post today as I am off and have no dental exams.
Have a bunch to take care of nontheless, will respond as soon as I can, even if it is very late . Bertot wrote.D Bertot

AM I will be getting to your last post in a little whileD Bertot

AM writes:I wanted you to be very specific about the above question then I was willing to let another expert such as ICANT have a chance to respond to that query. It appears that he has already by asking you a question about the "definition" of Interpres.Further from my "lay" examination it appears that your explanation in paragraph 4 of post 136 does not indicate that the plural could not only include just Adam and Eve. In the instances in Gen 5:2 where Adam and Eve are refered as Adam, it appears that it could be refering to both them and the race "Adam-mankind" as a whole.However in fairness I will let ICANT respond to this question with his expertise. Or atleast I hope he will. It seems as if you are saying something quite different than you did above. If they did not "all" get it wrong, it would follow that a literal translation is very possible. Since the Interpres is not the "written" in stone method of interpretation, they must have known this. In Gen 5:3 it seems as if the name Adam was given to a literal person, even if the word Adam means "mankind" of "humanity"The rest of this paragraph is simply assertion, speculation and alot of personal opinion, at best. You would be so unobjective to call in to question the motives, scholarship and skills of those scholars without the slightest bit of evidence. Im sorry were you there and did you observe every detail of every aspect involved in the translation process and thier motives? It is not your interpretation of the text that I am questioning presently, it is your strick application and probable over application of an interprative method, (the interpres). Limiting a word definition to a single application, such as Adam and its general meaning, then saying it "cannot" mean an individual, I am sure is not correct in any sense. Again, does it violate Hebrew grammar to allow a real person to carry the name of the words definition, or are you being to strict in your interpretation methods?As I stated to you before, I am sure that most translators, without continually exclaming to everyone, employ the interpres method, even if they do not call it that. They also initially look for the root meaning or a word and then let the context decide if it is literal or figuative, or both. you seem to stop at the root meaning, as in the case of "wet" and "dry", then proclaim, "thats It, thats all there is", without letting the context decide its status. I am sure and I suspect that most scholars employ the Interpres and Expository at the same time, without letting thier feeeling, personal opinions or interpretations get in the way, so as to be completly objective. What are these indications, other than your opinion? OK I thought the Interpres would give us the exact meaning of 130. Do you mean to tell me it could mean something other than Onehundred&thirty, could it be a figuartive meaning of something Will we actually have to employ the dreaded Expository and Personal opinions to decide what 130 means? I get it now, so only parts of the text can have dual meanings?So if you translate it exacally as 130 years, what prey tell could its odd ball designation refer to other than a persons age. Aperson imagination could quite literally run wild.Further do not each of the OT characters names have a specific related defintion to something in reality, that refers to something in the real world, that is a general categorization of human existence and its parts. Do they also have to be figurative because thier name refers to something other than a real human being. With your method anything and everything could be and become figurative depending on your approach. If this werent so serious it would actually be funny. It is you that has involved yourself in contradictions of terms, concepts and ideologies. You believe in an actual God, you further believe that God created the world and "sustains" it daily, and it would have to be intervention, for the sustaining act to have any meaning at all. Yet you cannot physically see him doing this and you have no way of proving this absolutley. Since you dont, that amounts to "faith", that things are the way they are because of God. In other words you believe in the supernatural by the things which you observe, and believe to be from a creator. It is not a contradiction of terms AM, if you believe essentially the samethings I do employing virtually the same methods, and you do.Actual reality as you call it AM, according to your use of the terms "supernatual" and natural, would logically bring you no closer to "seeing" God having "create" anything. Since you did not see him do this, it amounts to as much as reading about it in a book. Im sorry my friend that is how logic works. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If my position is a contradiction of terms, so is yours, no matter how much you love and observe nature.Actually though, you believe there is evidence to support his existence based on the things that exist and I believe there is evidence of miraculous intervention supported by the evidence that "sustains" the scriptures. Either both are good or niether are. Bravo AM, that sounds both "natural" and "supernatural" all in one package. Please demonstrate how you would seperate these two ideas in the above beautiful statement. Did you notice the first word in your sentence is "God" (supernatural), the rest is about nature. My point exacally.However, in response to my statement I did not say, that all physical things do not reside within the authority of God, they do. I said, every statement in scriptrue does not have to correspond directly with actual reality. Both can be within the authority of God and be correct and have proper interpretation. General revelation (nature) has its own interpretation and Specific revelation (Gods Word) has its own interpretation, they can be seperate yet in harmony.more in the morning.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

No thanks, heres why:AM I dont mean to be rude here, but the above statments indicate that I am dealing with a person that does not wish to be even reasonable. So now, we cannot define God as supernatural. When you take the opportunity to define and redefine a word and its simple meaning as something else, it is clear you have no intention of being remotely Objective. Whatever else God is, he is certainly "above and beyond, outside the natural", even if he created the physical, hence supernatural.If you are not willing to even admit such a simple point, it is doubtful you will be reasonable or objective anywhere else.As you told ICANT, "enjoy your interpretation of the scriptures".D Bertot

AM writesYou miss the point AM, its not that I am not up to it. I just know that when you are dealing with a person that does not know or refuses to acknowledge the very specific difference between infinite (supernatural) and finite (natural) you are spinning your wheels.You simply do not want to acknowledge the fact that your position is in the same boat as ours as far as absolutley demonstrating his existence and "intervention". You believe that because you observe physical reality this hightens your position over believing in the scriptures and what they convey as concerns Intervention, it does not. the evidence is virtually the same in both, wehther its from a "book" supported by evidence or nature supported by design.Both of our positions require a certain amount of Faith. I did not see the miracles happen and you did not see God desing or create anything.It is true I do not know what the exact meaning of the words in Hebrew convey, but when you start denying that an infinite God is not supernatural, then I have been around long enough to know you twisting the meanings of English words to be unreasonable.So please dont represent me as "not up to the task", verses knowing when it is time to break off conversation with an unreasonable person.As a last question, I will ask you, did you see God actually designing anything? Or are you assuming from the available information that this is the case.D Bertot

What is your exact point here without the sarcasm, it makes no senseYou are again missing the point. What does all of this have to do with you seeing God actually doing these things or not. Ofcourse I believe all of the above.. Think hard Mr about the words infinite and finite. the above post from you makes no sense in conjunction with my argument.By quoting scripture here are you equating the Bible with "actual reality" as you call it. You do realize you are quoting the scriptures, correct?Further, look up the word "supernatural" at dictionary.com and see if I am mistaken about what it conveys. Lets see who does not understand the English language.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

AM writesFirst let me say I am not frustrated by your conception of nature or infinite, I simply disagree with you. Nature, things that both have beginings and endings cannot by the very nature of the case be infinite. Infinity has no beggining or ending. By the English language and its discription He is supernatural, look it up. Since you like quoting scripture, it states, "heaven and earth will pass away, but the word of God endures forever", see the difference, or is this one of those scriptures you will reject because it soes not suit your purposes. You did not physically experience God doing anything, you see the effects of what you believe God to be doing, there is a diference anthat was the asis of my whole argument. you have not seen or do you know what infinity is, that is why the dictionary describes it and God as supernatural.Further my whole reason for starting this line of reasoning was to demonstrate that if you manipulate the English you are probably being to strict and confining with the Hebrew. However, that was only an implication and intimation, as I do not know Hebrew and was willing to confer it to ICANT and others that I know that know Hebrew.D Bertot

Sensing the Spirit of God is and act of Faith that, that is where the breath of fresh air came from. you need to think long and hard about the basic definitions of the words themselves, since you always chide others for not employing the English language correctly. Would you like me to go back and quote the condesending phrases, words and implications, this would be very simple. "Man, you are really not getting this", they are numerous almost to many to mention. Man you are really not getting this, ha ha.I remember you once saying "I am no sure how logic works". Please explain how "quoting exerpts of scipture that are in fact describing the spirit of God being involved in actual reality" is the same as actually seeing God doing this. You are employing the same argument you criticized me for, when you said , this is not the same as reading it in a book. Simply because you see the rain falling and the Bible states that it does, is not the same as "seeing" God perform this act, correct? You are accepting by observation and Faith that God is its source, the same way I am accepting by faith that the miracles took place. This is how logic works, AM. Remember the statement from yourself,"show me hell and I will believe in it". Show me outside your contention (faith) that the life inside of me is infinite and I will believe you. You could not do this if you wanted to, even though I agree with you.I will be happy to get back to the Hebrew verbage and specifics when ICANT or others confirm or deny what you said in post 138. I am only trying to be objective and honest in my admitting I do not know Hebrew, I, like ICANT cannot see how all of the numerous scholars and translators so goofed it up to come up with such and incorrect translation. perhaps you are aware of a written discussion somewhere on this very thing by two experts on both sides of the house that would assist me and us in seeing the differences in your contentions. Is there such a thing somewhere.Are you still sure you "hope you have not heard the last of me", ha ha.Be back in a few I have got to take the dog for a walk. I know that can be taken in two ways, but I really do have to take the dogs for a walk outside, ha haWhats wrong whimp, I see you logged off about 15 minutes ago, cant hang, eh.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

AM writes:This has not and cannot be demonstrated from the Hebrew verbage. Applying to strick of standards and over applying a translation and interprative method does not help your case, as ICANT has adequatley demonstrated. The "interpres" is only a starter, the rest of the Eden narrative make it very clear these were literal people and the vast numbers of scholoarly translators got it correct. But keep trying maybe someone will believe your limited and manipulated translations one day. If it was composed by God it is by intervention, something you for the most part reject. If it is then we can assume the rest of the Genesis account is accurate as well, since you cannot find the Eden narrative apart from this book. That would make the rest of the book and its application of the text as, literal, and the miracles real. You cannot have it both ways, if it is not from God or by intervention then while it may not be a myth that someone wrote it, it amounts to his or her ramblings and speculations.You work very hard at times in your verbage to make it from God but then in the final estimation pretty much reject its divine intervention. You reaaly should take a stance on that issue, it gets a bit silly after while. Did you wittness God doing any of this, or you going on nature and Faith. If God is a spirit, then he is not physical which nature is. God is the author of life and nature as you suggest but it is up to you demonstrate that nature or physical things are eternal and infinite. Please do this for me. Show me any physical thing that has died that can give itself life again. Just because physical things have life does not mean they are eternal in character, all the evidence would suggest they are not. Your attempt to make nature equal with God is ignorant at best. Actually got it backwards. Nothing can exist ouside of God, especially the physical. The physical universe, time, matter, space are all things that change, go from lesser to great and less, but it stops there. It is ignorant at best to assume that the infinite God, is bound by any of these things, and that they are and that he is limited by them in some way. If anything exists outside of God, he is not God.God creats physical manifestations of things for his creations to exist in, he himself is existence. He also can maifest himself inside those creations (Christ) for our purposes and his.Gods dwelling place is himself not the universe, this is the only logical possibilty, all others are ignorant at best. Including the Spirit in "man" which we "read" about in the scriptures. The spirit returning to God after death is nothing short of a miracle. You acknowledge that this happens in the above statement and the only way you know this is from a book and your ovservation of nature. If you know it some other way please provide it to me.AM writesHow do you know God is a Spirit. Where did you get this information from? How can you learn this fact just from nature itself?D Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

ICANT has responded to this with his knowledge of the Hebrew and you and I still appreciate that greatly, thanks again ICANT. I will watch you two discuss these specifics and jump in in this area if I feel I am able. For now it looks as if ICANT is doing pretty good. Its like the immortal Client Eastwood says, "a man has got to know his limitations". You avoided the question and if you did not see him do these things, then you are being deliberatley evasive by saying faith is not required. AM, simply repeating these words over and over does not make this fact go away, you are aware of this correct? This seems to be a nonsensical statement at best. Perhaps you could explain or demonstrate what "exacally" it "is" without repeating what it is not "only".These are the kinds of fanciful statements people make when they start to philosophize concepts and ideas without the proper information or a correct understanding of deductive reasoning. Since there is no way to "physically" display or demonstrate anything outside that which we call physical, it would follow logically that you cannot make a categorical statement that nature is not only physical. What would be your method of demonstrating this and what evidence could you employ to make such a outlandish statement.The obvious logical contradiction in your above statement is that you seem to only employ nature for your proof of the spiritual. This would involve you in the worst form of circular reasoning. But perhaps you can enlighten me further, this should be interesting. Possibly I did, it would not be the first time I botched something up, however, I cant ever remember making a mistake before today. Well there you go.Ok then, please demonstrate how that which we call physical is more and what it is more of, if not material.So if the universe as you suggest was created, how could it be infinite, this seems a logical contradiction again. Gods abode as the sriptures describe them are anthropomorphic, ("the explanation of what is not human, as though it were") statements or expressions to help us understand that which we cannot possibly understand. Finite beings could not comprehend how God and his self-existent eternal presence could exist without a dwelling place. Dwelling places are for finite beings. God creates this as he did in the case of the angels. Yes, even heaven and its throne are manifestations created by God for the heavenly host to reside, and worship him, probably created at the same time as Lucifer and the other angles.God is existence, he does not literally need a place to dwell. Your misunderstanding of this very simply point, demonstrates my point.As I stated before, nothing could exist outside of God, (if you belive in his exsitence)who is both existence itself and eternal by definition. This would involve itself in the worst form of logical contradiction.Gods dwelling place is himself not the universe, this is the only logical possibilty, all others are ignorant at best.Besides this my friends at apologeticspress.org are very aware of these and many more facts. However, I am sure they would be more than happy to address most if not all of your very unique postions and beliefs, if you would care to debate them publically. All of this we are discussing now would not be effected by the belief of the Eden narative as literal or poetic. God, his nature, exsitence and dwelling place are seperate issues. What exacally are you describing as a "spirit" here. With you , one should be very careful not to proceed before explanations are offered, due to the fact that if I wrote lengthy reply you might say, "oh well that not my meaning of spirit".Secondly, if any of the above in your statement actually does happen, how in the world do you know this, did you ever see it happen? Did you actually see it leave the body and go directly to Gods presence? Or did you indirectly borrow these concepts from that ole "unreliable" bible. If not where did you get this information that seems correspond directly to the scriptures. hope fully you wont avoid the question this time.God being a spirit. How do you know this and what is your source that he is Spirit? How do you even know of spirits. Or are you philosophizing again? Nature is a good start granted, but there has to more evidence than that to know he is a "spirit". Can you demonstrate this even from a physical standpoint, I say you cant. I say as much as you dont like it, "faith" is involved. Any thinking person could see that your inability to demonstrate this from and experiental physical standpoint, puts you in an unavoidable
positon that you cannot extricate youself from. Hey, but to quote a friend of mine, "believe whatever make you feel good".D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

AM if you think you are having trouble repairing that fence, just wait and see how much trouble you are going to have trying to repair these arguments you are advancing, ha ha. See you in a while.Inbetween then and now lay off the fresh mountain air alitle I think its affecting you perception of reality. Or disassociate yourself from that cult your in.D Bertot

What do you mean, I think you have totally disregarded my post 161, and I think I know why. How can you be talking to "us" guys. I thought i evolved? One is figuative and the other literal because you want them to be. Why should not the creation account of the "heavens" be taken as figurative as well? It conveys nothing that you cannot observe yorself, yet brings you no closer to seeing God doing any of these things. If as evolutionist and yourself say the universe is infinite, then these things could be a product of themselves. Make up your mind. More assertions and fancy verbage to describe something you cannot defend. Demonstrate this outside of Gods word please, you could not if you wanted to. So nature is simply Gods laws in motion, unless you can demonstrate otherwise. I will wait for this evidence you need to produce. Everything is good that God has created. Man however with his free will has the ability to produce that whih is Evil. We have been over this before AM and I demoloished your arguments in regards to free will. But I will be happy to review them again, if you wish.I have typed this in haste, so it may be alittle messy. I have got to go to work.. If you could reply to my last earlier post I would be happy.I think ICANT is doing pretty good job in connection with the Hebrew, so I will let him continue. I also will take it to my Hebrew professors and let them review it.In the meantime if you wish to continue discussing the Biblical and philosophical nature of God and existence that is right up my alley, there is nothing I love to discuss more. We can go to the proverbial "mat" with this one.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.