Questions of Reliability and/or Authorship

You did what I ask. All information is helpful whether good, bad, or indifferent.How much of this information is 'the Brock information'?

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

OK The name "Eve" as refering to the first woman that was taken from the side of man being created from a rib has absolutely nothing to do with the female in Genesis 5:2.The female in Genesis 5:2 was created at the same time as man in Genesis 1:27 as declared in Genesis 5:1.In Genesis 2:4 through Genesis 3:24 you have man and woman.
In Genesis 2:22 the femine noun is translated woman.But what difference does this make to you, as you believe it was all a myth and never did happen? According to Sabastian Brock and your paper interpres is: That translates into a translator that is trying to bring the person to the orginal text. That translates into a translator that is trying to bring the original text to the person.The exposition method is what you have been doing for over 500 posts. You are trying to fit the text into a mold and then present it to modern day people. This is bringing the person to the text. Translation This is bringing the text to the person. Interpertation Not really. That is listening to all those Interpertations that have been given to us by all our so called scholars. You stated you was giving an example of expositor translation and you did exactly that.You gave your interpertation of what Genesis 2:16 says not a word for word translation.

quote:

---

interpres The literal translator who is source text oriented.

---

interpres translator is not allowed to add anything. Only allowed to translated word for word what is written. So when did the word man or mankind become a personal name?I assume you are talking about Adam which is given by people like yourself to explain what they thought the first mans name should be. So your wife being a woman makes it incompatible or repugnant for her to be your helper. If you got one.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 writes: Well, that's a fine howdoyoudo. So you consider me an atheist who is parading around as a Pharisee. And you come to this conclusion because I am not a "Christian" and do not perceive the world, the universe or God the way you do. Good for you. What a wonderfully narrow minded approach to life.God bless,
Gerp.s. bertot & ICANT: I've got to get some fencing done this morning before the thunder storms kick in. I'll reply to your posts when I get the job done.All the best,
Ger

You did not give the full quote so here it is. I said from what I have read.
I have read the testimony that you have given.
I don't have anything else to go by.Maybe I was trying to read between the lines a little.You are saying the first man and woman was a myth.
God creating them was a myth.
God creating the animals was a myth.
Well if God did not create them they had to evolve.
But if God is just nature I have a lot of questions.Where did the speck come from that the universe expanded from?
Science says "We don't know".Where did the first spark of life come from?
Evolution says that is a study of abiogenesis. But that don't affect evolution, evolution is a fact.Did abiogenesis happen?
Best answer "We know it did we are here".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."

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I hope my answers will spark some lively discussions.ICANT asked a number of questions: I am saying that the Greco-Roman Christian fable of “Adam & Eve” is a myth.It was the human species, not just two individuals, that was Created in the beginning. The Supreme Natural God created the human species in God’s image and likeness. God being A Spirit - not an anthropomorphic masculine God - the image and likeness of God therefore has nothing at all to do with the human physical appearance, but rather the human creative intellect {which would be Hebrew feminine} and the human mental faculty of reason {which would be Hebrew masculine). The ancient Hebrew Eden narrative is neither a “fable” nor a “myth.” The Hebrew Eden narrative is a “wisdom poem/proverb” that describes God creating the human mammal and then bestowing it with the human and God-like creative intellect, and then the human mental faculty of reason. The human creative intellect and the faculty of reason are the mental characteristics that distinguish humans from brute animals. The Supreme Natural God did indeed create the animals; those of the water, the air, and the land. The Supreme Natural God created all the hosts of the heavens and the earth so that they would evolve. You apparently have a very limited and derogatory view of “nature.” I look forward to your questions. God is “Life” and from that Life the Cosmos is a living natural phenomena. The planet Earth being a part of the living Cosmos is alive only because of God’s Life. The Cosmos is constantly evolving, Earth is constantly evolving, and the denizens of planet Earth are constantly evolving. This evolution could not continue to exist without God’s Life. That is nature. The Cosmos is infinite, at least according to our infinitesimal perspective. The Universe that we perceive from our extremely limited perspective came from the infinite Cosmos. As the Supreme Natural God of Life gave Life to the Cosmos all of the galaxies of the Universe began to form from one speck of light. Motion and light are the fist expressions of life. The moving gasses of light began forming the force we call gravity, and gravity began forming the gasses of light into galaxies. Thus God divides the light from the darkness.That is a quick explanation to your above question: “The speck came from” God injecting Life into the infinite Cosmos.The infinite natural Cosmos is the Supreme Natural God’s abode. The “first spark of life” came from the Supreme Natural God.Abiogenesis is a discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter. That is a discredited theory.Without the Supreme Natural God’s Life, life can neither exist nor evolve. The formation of living organisms can only come into existence within a Cosmos of Life, and the life within the Cosmos came from the Supreme Natural God of Life. All things come from this Divine Life and all things return to this Divine Life. I tend to disagree. Within the Cosmos there is animate matter, and there is inanimate matter. The discredited theory of abiogenesis suggests that living organisms can spontaneously emerge from inanimate matter. That is an oxymoron. Animate organisms can only come from animate matter.All the best,
Ger

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.

bertot:I don’t have time today to reply to all that you posted. I’ll get around to the rest of your response tonight or tomorrow. Actually it can. The clause nepesh chayah employed at the conclusion of Gen. 2:7 is only used to describe a community {or species} of breath brute animal creatures. The clause nepesh chayah is never used to describe one male androgynous human being. A “species” or “kind” of breathing creature is always determined by it consisting of a “female” and a “male” procreative sexual gender. The Hebrew terms for “male” and “female” are never used anywhere in the context of the Hebrew Eden Narrative. I am going on my personal experience with the real, natural world, what I observe in the sky and the universe, and what I have been taught by other human beings through their actions, words, and literature. Faith is not required.That statement has got to put your pants in a bunch. Nature is not just physical. Gravity is not physical! That is just one example. The vitality of “life” is not just physical. There is a second example. Both of those examples are quite natural. I have never attempted to make nature - a creation of God - equal with God. I have never attempted to make the universe - a creation of God - equal with God. I have never attempted to make the Cosmos - a creation of God - equal with God.You must have misconstrued what I was saying somewhere. I am really glad to hear you say that. So, all of the references to “God’s abode” throughout the Bible are “ignorant at best.” You better add that one to apologetics.com.Could it be that these author, like me, are attempting to share something that is really difficult to get one’s head around in a proverbial, poetic, metaphorical manner? Give it some thought. Actually, the wind, breath, spirit which animates a mortal being returning to God after death is quite natural. When someone “gives up the ghost” they are exhaling their last breath. You did know that, right? Where else is that last breath of mortality going to return? Give it a little thought.I’ve got to get back to fencing the west pasture.All the best,
Ger

So if it was not two individuals, how many was it?Eight is not enough as I have been told here on EvC as that would cause a bottleneck in the population.Now if they all evolved from a single life form I think the bottleneck would be a lot worse. But that is just my thinking. If it is Greco-Roman how can it be Christian? Lets see we have: truth or lie.Now your "wisdom poem/proverb" has to fit under one of those headings. It is either true or a lie, which one? Did He do it as described in Genesis 2:19, 20?
OR
Did He do it as described in Genesis 1:20, 21 and 1:24, 25? So actually everything was created in some form with the potential to evolve into what it is today. Is that what you are saying? Nature is nothing but laws put into effect by God to control the universe and everything in it. So everything is getting better. I don't think so, as everything is devolving. God Is.
Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM.
That seems to say that God is everything that Is. The cosmos is not infinite. It had a beginning Genesis 1:1.
The cosmos is not infinite. It has an end. II Peter 3:10 says the heavens shall pass away with a great noise and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also.
Revelation 21:1 John said he saw a new heaven and a new earth for the first heaven and earth were passed away. Try that argument in the science forums. They don't buy it.The first question would be discredited by what scientist?
Next question where is that documented at? If God creates life why does it need to evolve?
Is God so small He can not do a complete job?But you are correct that life can not exist without God. Nothing exists without God. (consist = has it's existence) I disagree also but that is what science says. We are here it had to happen. There could be no God that did it.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."

Community is your personal addition.

Heb. Transliteration   Definition
 =    'adam      = man or mankind.
 =      chay      = living, alive
 =     nephesh   = soul, self, life, creature, person
                      being

You can get species out of that which is mankind.
You can not get community our of it no matter how you try to twist it. What does your experience have to do with whether God created the animals; those of the water, the air, and the land.The only thing you have to go on is the first 3 chapters of Genesis.Since nobody was there we have to take the Word of God that has been passed down to us.You can only believe it by 'FAITH'. Gravity is a law put in place by God. Colo. 1:17. Vitality as found Here. If it is not just physical, what is it? God is life, from that life Cosmos is life, Natural phenomena.Sounds to me like you talking about the same thing. Why not just take the information God has given to us.
You want to know where God the Father's abode is Paul visited Him in the third heaven. II Cor. 12:2God the Son is at the right hand of the Father.God the Holy Spirit's abode in around my spirit. He sealed it until the day of repemption. Also anyone else who has been born of the Spirit. Ephesians 4:30 Are you saying the wind, breath, and spirit are the same thing?I need a little proof for that.You are still confusing the man in Genesis 2:7 where God formed him from the dust of the ground which you say could not exist because it was wet. (You don't live where I do because 1 hour after a rain we have dust on the ground. Lawn Mower really kicks it up.) Then breathed the breath of life into him and he became a living being.WithThe man that was created in Genesis 1:27 who was created in the Image and likeness of God.

God the Father equal's all knowledge.  He gave us a mind.
God the Son has a physical body.       He gave us a physical body.
God the Holy Spirit, Is Spirit.        He gave us a spirit.

Thus we are made in the image and likeness of God. Having mind body and spirit.The man in Genesis 2:7 was not formed in the image and likeness of God but he was formed a few trillion googleplex years ago counting time as we know it.Unless you have a date for Genesis 1:1.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:Great last two posts! I am eager to respond, but at this time I am too exhausted.I'll try to give you at least some kind of reply tomorrow morning.Regards,
Ger

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.

ICANT & bertot:My fencing job has run into a whole lot of rocks. Needless to say by the end of the day I am mentally and physically wiped out.I have one more day to put in tomorrow, and then I'm going to take a break and go buy some railroad ties. Hopfully spending a few bucks will give me some time to recover from the labor of love.If you guys can be patient I would apprecieate it. I really want to respond to the last three posts.By tuesday I should be rested enough to focus on our discussion. I really like the way its heading and am eager to participate.All the best to both of you,
Ger

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

bertot, ICANT: I can hardly wait to be able to sit on my butt and let you guys kick my ass up on side and down the other. I do have it coming, ya know? A good long rest with an ass massage, that is.I'm off to dig myself another hole.Have a good one,
Ger

ICANT wrote: I would suspect that when the human species was initially created it was in the number of a small community; perhaps around one thousand. I find it interesting that the name of the first letter of the Canaanite/Hebrew writing system is also the number “one thousand” (BDB pg. 48). Let’s see: The Greek Septuagint was the Old Testament cited by the Apostles. The New Testament was composed in Greek. By the third century CE Roman Emperor Constantine declared Christianity as the Religion of Rome, and the New Testament Canon was completed at Nicaea. Thus, we have the Greco-Roman Christian Universal Church and Religion. The Hebrew Eden Narrative conveys confirmable, supportable facts and truth by employing natural metaphors and wisdom riddles. By engaging one’s human mental capacity of reason what is conveyed through the Hebrew Eden Narrative can be discerned and understood with very little room for error or misunderstanding. The natural metaphors employed by the author of the Hebrew Eden Text are “plants, herbs, rain, fields, mist, dust, trees, rivers, serpents, etc. etc.” These natural elements are as real and true today as they were when the Eden Narrative was originally composed. Insofar as creating all of the hosts of the heavens and the earth, the Gen. 1:20/1 & 24/5 would be the accurate account.The Gen. 2:19 & 20 is described in a poetic/proverbial fashion, for the focus of the Eden Text is on the creation of the mental capacity of the human species - the human creative intellect, and the human mental capacity of reason {knowing good and bad). That is what I am saying.

quote:

---

AM wrote:You apparently have a very limited and derogatory view of "nature."

---

Nature is much, much more than just laws put into effect by God. God’s breath of life animates all living creatures on the earth and in the heavens. God’s life is in the rain, the wind, the sun, grasses, herbs, trees etc., etc. Let’s see, “Is everything good or is everything evil/bad? You are caught within “the knowledge of good and bad”. There will be no figurative eating of the tree of this life as long as you keep figuratively eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.But, everyone’s got to do what they’ve got to do, eh? I agree with you completely. But doesn’t this statement seem at odds with your above comment regarding “nature”? I sense that you are confusing “the Cosmos” {a.k.a. “the deep”, Gen. 1:2}, with “the heavens {i.e. the sky and the stars of the universe).

quote:

---

AM wrote: Abiogenesis is a discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter. That is a discredited theory.

---

I forgot to cite the source of the above information regarding “Abiogenesis”: Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, © 2003, pg. 4. The term BIOGENESIS was first coined by T. H. Huxley in 1870. The name of the scientist who discredited “abiogenesis” was not given. All the dictionary says is that abiogenesis is now the discredited theory.That is enough for me. But, if we need to know by whom and when abiogenesis was discredited we could look on the Internet. You appear to agree “that life cannot exist without God.” So, to me, essentially that means that God is constantly infusing life with life; thus, life evolves. God causes rain, clothes the grasses, feeds the birds, etc., etc. and therefore life goes on due to the Awesome Majesty of God. Life cannot exist without God! We are in total agreement. I too disagree with what science says.All the best,
Gerp.s. I will start on post 159 tonight or tomorrow.