Biblical Translation—Eden, 4

Joseph writesI 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.AM has set out premises in his previous posts about the earth, the people, thier civilizations and so forth that need to be addressed intially. What do you say?In your post here I can see indirect refernces to the NT again and again.Now I will be happy to discuss the validity of the NT and the OT at some other point. Or perhaps we could simply rehearse all of Jaywills very elabrate and exhaustive posts trying to convince you of this fact. What do you say?D Bertot

AM writesAre you implying biological evolution here?Since you percieve it as a narrative, do you maintain that God created man by special creation or that at a certain point in his evolution God began to endow him with special features?Were these peoples narratives (Eden) based soley on the physical information and do you believe they believed they got it correct?What specific "eternal" messages do you think they were trying to convey to us or anybody?While this is avery unique view, would it not fall into the category of a sort of "supernatural speculations" on you part and thiers, if you are trying to make a connection with God as were the people at that time.Would not just allitle bit of faith be required on yours and thier part to believe in the connection between the physical aspects of your argument to the "eternal", to use your own expressions? In the previous post you wanted to imply the cosmological, eternal, and mysterious aspects of the things the ancients could not explain.It seems it would be easier to demonstrate the text being from God to man than a eternal connection from man to God. This due to the fact of the internal evidences of the scriptures, the medical, historical, scintific and other related information in the scriptuires. Information that hese people could not have gotten and would not have been available at thier times. Indicating that it could only have come by inspiration from God himself.In a time when people were using dung and other outlandish methods of disinfection the OT sets itself apart in its methods of proper medical treatments. Quarantining and other to numerous to medical, scientific, cosmological, historical information.Would the people you are discribing and thier physically limited information be able to really help us understand the "eternal/mortal connection?D bertotIll try to get started with these question in your context

Bertot writes. While the verse I quoted is different from an actual command, it would be simple to see that the statement i quoted is a coboration of the command in Exodus 20:17. As I have indicated before, one would be very hard pressed to find a passage that supports the idea that an action has to accompany an evil thought for the thought to be a sin. One would literally need to rewrite the commands or statements or mentally rearrange it in thier own mind. this is why no verse has been produced that implies that coveting must be accompanied by actions and this is exaclly why I issued that challenge.Again, people literally think every second of thier lives, unless sleeping. It may be alot easier to view the command in the manner you are going for but easier is not always scriptural. I dont think God would have made such a clear distinctionn between this command and the other commands that almost always require a physical act.There seems to be no provision for the philosophy that an action must accompany it either in Exodus or Duet. One would have to seriously read this into it.To say, thou shalt not covet thy neighbors things is not to say it must be acted on to be a sin. This is all a part of the responsibility of being created in Gods image. decernment, reasoning, understanding and the whole mental process that requires no physical acion to particapate in it.To covet anything is a sin against the one who knows our very thoughts, this is why it is not necessary to involk any of mans laws to cooborate it.D Bertot

AM writesAt long last I now know what you mean by "inspired". Should thier inspiration be regarded as more enlightening than other mens estimations, in the context ofhuman inspiration. Maybe you can make that distinction for us now at the start of this new post.D Bertot

Joseph writes "Shudder", boy my spelling is really bad. Maybe I was thinking of the one on a window.You have got to be kidding that yours is a defense posture in connection with the NT. You are the Major leading the attack with your guns at full blast.Further, if your defense in response to Jaywill's presentations are indicative of your position, we have nothing to worry about.Ive known what the "right direction" was for many many years of debate and engagement, both with myself and listening to and watching public debates conducted by men in the brotherhood, going back as far as 1829 with Alexander Campbell and others.Thanks anyway though.D Bertot

AM writes Can you be honest with yourself and say that to "take pleasure in" involves more action or more thought. Ofcourse, the second one would more accurately describe that phrase. Also, there is no "context" that allows the interpretation of Covet to be interpreted as a action. Examples of what one should not think about are not interpretations of the words itself. Athought has to correspond to a physical property, yet it does not have to involve it directly. "every imagination of thier thought was continuosly evil", so on and so forth. there were things here these people were thinking about in the physical world that did not need action for it to be wrong. A person simply could not ACT on every thought and this is why God makes it a violation, even if it is simply by implication and use of the word in context itself. Think about itD Bertot

Joseph writesGod is not an illogical monster and 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 20:17God at this time made it clear that to only eat of the tree would violate his will. If however, at a later time he specifies that the very thought is something that he commands or wishes we not do, it then becomes a violation, sin or evil to do so.D Bertot

Joseph writesOK if I agree that you feel threatened can we leave this topic for another time. Lets deal with one insane position at a time. AMs philosophising is about all I can handle at present, Ha Ha.D Bertot

Not to be funny here AM, but if this is the way you are using the word inspiration, then it is the vaugest of all concepts when trying to apply it to the eternal or the esoteric. Look up the word "inspiration" in the dictionary, then apply those. Not only does the word inspired not involk the supernatural when veiwed from man to God, but it can involk the wildest imaginations and outlandish concepts, ideas or thoughts.If however, this is your use and definiton of inspired, even applied tothe eden narrative, your conclusions are still going to be yours and yours alone. this due to the fact, even by your own addission, that we (humans) cannot know anything about how or why God does things. "God does what he does, how can I know anything about these matters, it is above my paygrade". I believe these were your words, correct.But as I promised I am willing to listen to what you have to say in these matters. It simply seems the strangest of paradoxies to hold the positon you do about the "supernatural", then believe one can see something specific about the "Eternal" in a poem written 4000 years ago by humans without any aid, intervention or support DIRECTLY to cooborate these claims or ideas.Ironically I was at a friends house today doing some work and noticed a Buddah (did I spell that right)statue on his front porch and asked him to explain what it was that these people believed about the eternal nature of things, to which he gave a very lenghty explanation. I then asked him without any further, discussion or quesions, where he believed these people got thier ideas about God and things and he said they probably believed they derived them from thier own ideas and experiences. He further related that they believed that if we do and act a certain way in this life, we get to proceed to other levels of spiritual existence, etc, etc. Would you say they were inspired?You have a very lengthy post to which I will reply late tonight, I have somethings to do right now.D Bertot

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 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".D Bertot

I doubt it but OK. Everything was "good", until man sinned through the ageny of Free Will and a curse was placed on them and it by the same one that created it. even the curse was logical from a "eternal justice" standpoint. Do you want to shut up or keep talking?D Bertot

AM writesYour sarcasm without humor is not needed.AM "vauge" in the respect there is no way you could possibly know if your interpretation were correct from a "eternal" or cosmological standpoint. If men are writting these things with thier own imaginations and "inspirations" then they are only contemplations no better or worse than anyone elses. The text may speak for itself if two things follow, was it written by man with his own imaginaion and yes it speaks for itself if you are not going to understand the concept of eternal justice and understanding. Those two verses have to be understood in the context of the rest of the narrative. Man disobedience is only part of the plan because man chose to disobey. God did not order them to do so. AM I think your "literalness" is starting to surface again. "good" in the respect that it was "complete" for the purposes it was intended. But because free will is in the picture, this can cahnge the way God approaches or does things. Much in the same manner that our requests through prayer or not praying at all change the course of events.D Bertot

Joseph writesThen you must have some special magical powers to reread Exodus 20:17 or involve yourself in some delusional process to come this cnclusion. As I said before if you are getting out of Exodus 20:17 all of the above you have written, then the word delusional does not even begin to describe your positionI agree with you that "all humans must stand down", but thank heavens that Jesus is God himself, the very same one that issued the command in Exodus 20:17, see how it works Joseph?D Bertot

this is what I mean AM this kind of dancing around intervention by the use of "sublime mystery".Now what in the the world does that mean and how in the world will we ever know with mans estimations of things? "Deep profound contemplation" different than someone elses deep profound contemplation HOW. Why is this one any better if its all from men. How would these fellows know anymore about the "eternal" nature of things more than anyone else. You believe this because you want to see this, but it would not follow logically no matter how accurate you were with your interpretationof a composition written by man, through man, to man and for man. Its circular reasoning. How do these two phrases sound like what Jesus said, could you explain? What you describe in this statement is nothing short of "speculation", supernatural or otherwise AM.How can eternal wisdom be displayed by someone limited tothis planet and how would they have gotten this knowledge without information other than thier own imaginations, to let them know anything specifc about the cosmos or beyond. A greater faith would be required to believe your position than would ever be required to believe that God has intervined to man I do not jump at this or that. Its is only because "intervention" makes the only logical sense. if it is simply mans imaginations then it is only subjective speculation, no matter how elaborate the interpretations or the conclusions you draw from them. You are only interpreting mans words. Your fasination with these words is your and yours alone. Instead of me trying to explain all of these I will try and get the articles and website that sets some of these out and get back with you. They are from apologeticspress.orgD Bertot

AM I am very sorry I have not got back to this I have been very busy, I will try to get to it this evening, OK. I am not really puting it off, I simply have alot going on, dont get to far ahead, Ihave read it and it looks interesting. Again, SorryBut that is the beauty of this forum, we can take as much time as we need, thanks again to the Admin guys and yourself.D Bertot