Biblical Translation—Eden, 4

The notion of a differential of man going to God as opposed God going to man, opens the door to much self-proclaimed premises which may or may not be true or correct. IOW, one can say this is the case, because so and so said so: who can prove or disprove here? Thus I see this open to manipulation and more chaos.To examine this issue better, one must allocate whatever be the will of God, it is not pointed to a messenger but to a message - it is God's will addressing humanity at large or a particular event or people which may be the focus, to make an example.The applicable factor should be, lets says a group believes one messenger came and gave us a message - lets says this applies to a figure such as Moses. Then let's says another group emerged which also says a messenger arrived and gave a message. This is fine - why should the God of all creation be concerned only with one event at one time and never again? But lets says, the secnd message is a contradiction, negation, or one which causes a rift and a disagreement. Lets say, at least, the second message was controversial. Here, the second party says, God did not approach us, but we approached God. In such a case, surely only the God or via Moses, can clear it up, even if that second messenger shows you another reading of what Moses says.Take any situation in real life, a government proclamation or a war: would you harken to a sargent's command which is in contradiction to the king's command? Of course you would be most potentially and evidently wrong. We will find that the second group will not abide by its own criteria: it will not harken to a third group unless their own sargent was at hand. This is manifest logic, but it will be rejected: why so? because the second group did not ask for proof that the one which first gave the command be present along with the seond messenger group. QED.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I shutter that you and I might actually agree on something here but I do agree with you basic premise of self-proclaimed premises. However, lets approach it initally from Autumnamns reasons for beliving his premises and not your CONTINUAL battering of the NT in conjuction with the OT.

---

If you shudder that you agree, you are on the right track. My thing with the NT is limited to a defense posture only, and ultimately points you in the right drection.With autmn, I am not sure what he means by a Natural God - IMHO, there is no such thing as 'nature'; this is a constructive and intelligent expression, of recent vintage, to denote the inexplicable and for science not get bogged down between religious doctrines.

"inspired".One of the most exploited terms in recorded history, responsible for more deaths than any other word.I say, one should thread carefully before honoring this term. It all depends what one was inspired for, and what was its results.

Thoughts are mostly involuntary, and can afford no control by the subject. Usually, these are temptations sent to test, or aspirations meant to compell. They are not the results of anything we do, aside from random environmental impacts, and here too - these situations may not be as random as one thinks them. Without these thoughts attacking humans, with no cause by humans, humanity would not be able to do good or bad. Both merit and curses come how we act thereafter.Thus with adam and eve, while putting them in a situation of the most overwhleming temptation, they did not incur a sin by desiring or touching, but only by eating - the criteria in the command. More importantly, the word 'covet' was not used in this command.The misuse, or perfered or desired view of this term is based on a gospel interpretation, but nowhere in the OT is there a command a thought can be accounted as a sin. Aside from this factor, I honestly do not believe any reasonable thinking person would arrive at the conclusion you have. Where there is a difference of opinion, the NT adherants should take good advice - but other factors impact here.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

You would shudder more if you played the part of the recipient of the gospel's charges and slants. Believe it.

Its the same with the term belief - more humans have been killed by this term than any other. Humans have an inbuilt, inherent connection with their source [the Creator], but cannot deciphere or explain it. This makes it very easy for someone to exploit, by convincing they have the way. Here, even two new beliefs can emerge and each in diabolical contradiction of each other - and each telling you your doomed unless you follow them.Now you can sweat it out for ever, argueing that the OT has no law making a thought as a sin or crime, and you can put any amount of logic, proof of text and coherence - but you wont get anywhere with one afflicted with a belief or inspiration.Beware those selling beliefs, inspirations and visions - specially those which have no other evidence and display the antithesis of what is a greater truth.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

God is not will not hold people responsible for that which he has not commanded. At this point they were not even aware that to covet would be an incorrect act or "thought". He had not yet commanded it as in Exodus 20:17

---

That is why there is no law in the OT which says a thought is a sin. It is seen only in the NT, and it is a fully failed premise.

quote:

---

Exodus 20
17 And the people stood afar off; but Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was. {S}

---

Far from what you allocated to that verse, it says something which is far away from you. It says, in fact, that eventually, all the agents, messengers, messiahs and any exaggerated and false allocations to any other humans - will have to stand down with the people. Yes, sons too. This is the meaning of commanding Moses, who stood 'presence to presence' in the fog - the greatest human who ever lived - to stand down. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I think that the individual that issues commands, Exodus 20:17 (God) is much more important than the person that stands in his presence, what do you say Joseph?

---

Your repeating what I said in my last post. *All* [read, no exceptions] will stand down the mountain, including Moses - the greatest human who ever walked on earth. You are the one positing its contradiction.

quote:

---

Your obsession and preocupation with the NT is becoming a bit unhealty at best.

​

No amount of disatisfaction with the NT will change the import of Exodus 20:17, but if it makes you feel better knock youself out, or as AM says "knock youself in the head".

---

The obsession is yours. I am not obsessively antithising the OT truths with interpretations of another book - claiming the NT is right and transcends the OT. And its not just me who says so - take the opinion of anyone outside the NT adherants: is that not a good test for you, and to show which is the obsessed one?The verse you posted has naught to say a thought is a sin.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

What you call bad, is a negative force created by God. It is not an antithetical force acting outside the Creator's will. The negative force was ushered in with the word 'very'. Good is good, but very good is not good - it is both good and bad. Very good is the term used when creation was ceased.'VERY' = COMPETITION, ENVY, CONFLICT, DISPUTATION, MY GOD IS BETTER THAN YOURS.Very has no end conclusion.

It means all those things, complete [requiring no alterations or adjustments], greatly good [even better than the heavenly realm], and also very good [a counter to be more very good].If all is equally good, this would not be referring to this dynamic realm, but a more static one, namely heaven and its heavenly beings who suffer no counter forces - unless they enter this realm. All in the creation chapter was created in a duality [day/night, male/female, water/land, light/darkness] - and very good is the counter to good. This is also why there is no anti-force, and no mention of satan here.

God does not need to rest. Only the act of creation was rested, as it says, 'RESTED FROM ALL HIS WORKS''GOD DOES NOT SLEEP' [Psalms].

I posted that verse before, and saw nothing which says a thought is a sin. here it is again

quote:

---

Exodus 20
17 And the people stood afar off; but Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was. {S}

---

Your remark all will not stand down is based on one belief only, which has self-proclaimed its belief as a fact, and self proclaimed itself as transcendent of other beliefs which predate it and which it never knew or followed. I do not want to involve myself in a discussion of beliefs - to each his own. My responsa was limited to the OT, and defending your alien claims. I have no issue with anyone's beliefs, except when they say all others are bad and doomed, then go on to interpret the OT in their own modes.If you study history, you will know, Israel's destinty is not in the hands of the church - the reason she has survived.

An inspiration can also be bad and wrong, because it is always self centred. Its like the CEO of a company making decisions for its own company; one's conscious mostly behaves that way. It is not a good inspiration unless it has performed and resulted, in good, for a long period of time. And here too, it must be good from another's pov.

quote:

---

In my opinion, the author of the Hebrew Eden Narrative conveys how human being have become the human beings we are, as well as how we can once again return to the consciousness of the human beings we once were.

---

Then how do you explain the recording of specific stats and specs 2500 years prior to Moses and the OT, which have been authentisized by archeology? I refer, for example, to 1000s of names of generations, with dod, dob's and places - these cannot in any wise be recalled, and these were never written down anywhere? You may know, that 95% of all archeological datings for humanity is via 'names and writing styles'. A 40000 year old name never appears 3000 years ago, and is never written in the same style script.

quote:

---

In my opinion the Hebrew Eden Narrative conveys very much the same thing that Jesus was conveying when he said that “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.”

---

I don't see any allignment here. The OT does not claim anyone can be saved or not saved via the deeds of a child's errors [a child cannot sin]. The OT premise is that one is judged on his actions, and this is subject to one fully aware what he does is wrong, and continues it. Then too, one can alter his destiny even in the final nano-secs of his life.The NT was unable to adhere to the OT laws - thus it says it is not applicable, and then goes on to posit new laws - all of which have failed, while attempting to negate God's law - as if these were wanting. But all the OT laws are active today.

quote:

---

A greater faith would be required to believe your position than would ever be required to believe that God has intervined to man

---

Easier if this was contemplated with open eyes and no blatant blindness. It is Israel's 60th anniversary, and it is not debatable of interfearence in man's work. If a christian does not understand the OPEN intervention, he will never understand the shrouded or anything. Prophesy vindication cannot be selective or ommisive.

quote:

---

"There is no clearer sign of the Redemption than this, as is written in the Book of Ezekiel (36,8), 'You mountains of Israel will give forth branches and will bear fruit for My people Israel who are on their way.'"

---