Biblical Translation—Eden, 4

Admin. The Biblical Translation-Eden threads have been extremely popular and there is a great deal more discussion and debate that can be exchanged regarding the content of this particular subject.The following is a reply from bertot to what autumnman had composed: This is a very interesting position and warrents alot of discussion andI am eager to get toit.Could you ask them if we can continue?D BertotBertot and autumanman are hoping you will allow us to continue discussing this subject by granting us a new thread--Biblical Translation--Eden, 4.Thank you for your help. And we hope to hear from you soon since we have just exceeded the 300 post limit on B.T--Eden,3.All the best,
autumnman/Ger

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

bertot & IamJoseph:Wow! I went to sleep and woke up eleven posts behind you guys.Let me make a couple general statements now and I'll attempt to be a bit more specific down the road.In regard to taking someone's word for a claim they are making, I do not perceive any difference between someone claiming that God came to them or someone claiming that they went to God. Either way we the listeners or readers of the claim are left with nothing more than some other human being's word.I employ the English term inspiration--meaning Man connecting with God/the infinite--as it applies to the Hebrew Eden Narrative being in my view an inspired ancient Wisdom Text. The term inspired does not invoke the idea of supernatural intervention but rather conveys the concept of a mortal human being in deep and profound contemplation of mortal reality as it occurs on planet earth.I'll be back in a bit. All the best,
Ger

bertot:

quote:

---

AM writes: this ancient and unique Hebrew Text describes in stunning detail {employing Hebrew Wisdom-Literature: riddle, metaphor, and poetic allegory} that which is documented in the tangible ground of The Holy Land. Thus, I perceive the Hebrew Eden Narrative as a “valid” poetic description of the human evolution that actually occurred and is documented in the actual dirt of the Holy Land.

---

Yes. I am implying biological evolution, but it is, in my opinion, biological evolution plus a sublime mystery that I cannot readily attribute to biological evolution alone. According to the lexicographic definitions and applications of the Hebrew terms used in the composition of the Hebrew Eden Narrative it certainly appears as though the author is describing at a certain point in Man’s evolution God began to endow him with human consciousness. Gen. 2:7 concludes with the clause “and Man became in regard to nepesh chayah=a breathing animal” {BDB Lexicon: “elsewhere nepesh chayah always of animals Gn 1:20, 24,30; 2:19; 9:12, 15, 16; Ez 47:9” (pg659). What my research has discovered is that the Hebrew Eden Narrative is based on both physical information and inspiration {i.e. deep, profound contemplation of the Sublime Eternal Mystery of Life). Do I believe they got it correct? Insofar as the Hebrew Eden Narrative conveying, “>eleh tholedoth hashamayim veha>eretz behibare>am=these are the human generations as they are created” (Gen. 2:4a), the author is on the mark, in my opinion. The way to the metaphorical 0etz hachayiym=tree of this life is between “the like of much greatness and the flame of war’s desolation,” as well as, “the like of much abundance and the consuming blaze of desolation.” And this sounds remarkably like “But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest; for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil” (Luke 7:35).This conveys not only “eternal wisdom” but “practical wisdom” as well. In my opinion, “the category of a sort of ”supernatural speculation’,” does not exist. A text that conveys both eternal and practical wisdom would fall under the category of Hebrew Wisdom Literature. If someone, like yourself, needs to believe that a supernatural Deity or source was in play in order to receive the message conveyed by the Hebrew Eden Narrative, then so be it. But if one’s belief in the supernatural distorts, clouds, or alters the eternal and practical wisdom being conveyed by the Hebrew Eden Narrative, then the supernatural approach to the Text is less than helpful. In my opinion, no “faith” or “belief” is required. It sounds as though you misunderstood my implication. The ancient author of the Hebrew Eden Narrative explained much; it is I who am amazed by what the author knew, and I am as yet unable to explain how the author knew what he conveys through the riddles, metaphors, and allegories composed within the context of the Hebrew Eden Narrative. I do not jump at a chance to embrace any kind of “supernatural intervention.” You, on the other hand, have difficulty progressing without the notion of “supernatural intervention.” I am not of any religious or “spiritual” order or doctrine that exists, or ever has existed on planet earth”as far as I know. You, on the other hand, are, or at least sound as if you are, a Pauline Christian who believes in Pauline Christianity.What exactly is this “medical, historical, scientific and other related information in the scriptures” that you claim is there? All I need is Book, Chapter, and Verse. All I need is Book, Chapter, and Verse. Absolutely. I would be happy to show you if you are actually interested. Be prepared, however, what the Hebrew Eden Narrative conveys will be in stark contrast to what you have been taught and have come to believe.All the best,
Ger