Biblical Translation—Eden, 4

AM writes My implication in in this context was to point out that there was nothing "signature" about the Essenes statement. Also the second part of the quote was what I was interested in you explaining how they or you could know any of the esoteric exclamations pronounced in the the quote. Get it now? No AM it does not. Applying definitions of words and attaching meanings to them does not constitue any sort of evidence or "signature" that that would be considered of other than human imput. Actually what you have done here is to take words written by men and made them to say, that because physical things exist God must exist and he figures this out as a result of the use of his intellect. Of course I agree with the premise here, but it is simply nothing that cannot be arrived at without assistance from the spiritual realm. You statement is very well formated but it simply fails to demonstrate "inspiration". Now if you believe I have missed something, then put it in "simple" english avoiding all of this rehtoric and I will show you I am correct here.Again my point was not that the Essesns believed this or that you do, but what evidence could be offered to demonstrate that this is what is happening and how this is discriptive of the eternal or spiritual in any real sense. Contemplations and imaginations are not evidence, even if you give very accurate discriptions of the words of men.Again the Essens were applying this the information in this quote to the totalilty of scripture because they believed it was totally Gods word.First demonstrate what it is specifically in this quote that could not have been contemplated or imagined. In other words show me "the breath of God in the wind". Or do you accept this by faith based on observable physical evidence?D Bertot

AM writes This is the only point I see that warrents attention in connection with topic at hand. Specifically what aspect of the prehistoric world does the Eden narrative describe that would make us believe he had information that he could not know about? I understand you amazement AM of the Eden narrative, but this would hardly quaify as other than imagination or contemplation and most certainly not constitute other than human imput. your intimations and conclusions would be more difficult to believe than any supernatual event. I most certainly believe the Eden story is both actual and inspired but for very different reasons. What you are discribing sounds much like an imaginative fellow with alot of time on his or hands, not something incomprehensable at his present knowledge.If however, you do bleieve in your heart that this information was something beyond his actual experiences, then how did he obtain it? secondly, if it is not really possible, for all intents and purposes to "literally" make contact with the eternal realm or have that realm intervine can we really know if our conclusions are correct in the Eden narrative, or in our interpreatation of it? Wouldnt they still just be tenative conclusions at best?If God has not intervined in the affairs of men, as you directly stated in another post, then might it not be the case that another creation account is a more accurate account of creation. You are assuming your conclusions about the ToE are true and correct. Since you believe the ToE and the palentological "evidence", then there would be no "missing link" according to the fossil "evidence" and evoluionists provided in the area of Neanderthals and proto-humans. In other words there is no "real" missing link according to that theory. The evoulutionist suggest that there are only small "gaps" in these areas. Would not the proto-human fossils upset your theory.Again, there is nothing here that would suggest anything but an over active imagination, if inspiration is not involved. If his only source to compose it, was the the physical world as inspiration,then this is bore out in its context and content. If I am missing something pleae let me know,point it out in simple english.Again, how does the Eden narrative describe Darwinian biological evolution? This seems a bit of a strech to me. Could the very simple statement "out of the dust of the earth", be construed to imply a very comprehensive complex item as "macro-evoution", or is this what you are hoping to see? this seems much like the pysical only describing the physical.It seems the narrative would need other signature marks besides wild comparisons and undemonstratable conclusions.D Bertot

If human beigns have the mental capacity to understand and the bottom line is you WOULD have a decision in the situation about the house it is irrelevant what other factors would be involved inthe case. It is a choice making and decision making process, nonetheless. It never ceases to amaze me how the simpilest and most obvious of points can be twisted to mean something else. Now I am happy to discuss the Eden narrative with you, but I do not wish to waste my time on a question that a child could understand. The point is we can CHANGE OUR MINDS if the information presented is strong enoughto make us do so. Now this will not always happen but the "possibility" exists for this to happen. Lets move on Please!! I think you are getting the proverbial "hart" before the "chorse". Thats "Spoonerism" if you didnt know that. I thought I would through that in to liven things up a bit,ok Ill shut up now. I think you are getting the proverbial cart before the horse. In other words when the Eden narrative was written, humans had been in existence long before the possible imaginary events described in its context actually took place. So the "something conveyed", is but a guess by the writer as to what may or may not have actually taken place. It would be up to you to demonstrate that the thngs conveyed in regards to the origins of human existence as we know it are actually what the writter means and intended to relay to his audienceby the terms, concepts and ideas. While it may be seperate in content an subject matter, does it not carry the same signature that the rest of the scriptures have,ie, those things that are "exclusive" to the body of works seperate from anyother ancient writing at the time and listing and conveying ideas, concepts, terms, informations and subject matter that could only have been given by inpiration directly from God. Now I certainly dont see the narrative as having the same "signature" as the rest of the scriptures can demonstrate, and I see your interpretations of the words as a strech to support your ideas, but if there is any signature at all it is similar to the same body of works it attaches itself to, regardless of its age. I could do the samething with the book of Job, which many scholars see as the oldest book of the Hebrew bible. This was exacally my point that because God has a perspective we do not and is aware of the things that are present at anygiven time, what may appear to us as backwards, certainly may not be. Also, trying to use mans since of justice to determine what is right or wrong is often time a mistake. While in this and other countries it is OK to abort children (murder if you will), but the same justice system sends people to jail for breaking or eating an eagles egg, go figure.So lets stick to seeing if there are any signatures that warrent the conclusion that this may be other than human imput. I am well aware of the arguments and implications you are making here and I have heared and delt with this argument before. But at present we are not discussing this very specific issue. It may tie in later. But a good debater knows when to move on or not skip randomly to another topc before its time. lets stay with one at a time. What doyou say? Besides this 2Kings 22 and 23 do not make a good case for that which you are suggesting. This my friend is where you are sadly mistaken and where you make your fatal errors. Certainly the world and the things in the world would convince us of his existence, but without the aid of direct influence and inspiration, I maintain that you cannot know one specificthing about him or that which he may want us to know about his plans or ideas about us. I have never disagreed with your positon above, except for the fact that you say, "one need look any further for his wisdom outside of his creation".My friend the rest of the scriptures carry the weighter "signatures" that identify it also as the Word of God. it is these that you need to deal with not some indirect conclusion you are trying to draw from a specific book of the Bible. The subjective moral codes as you describe them are intertwined with the identifying marks, that you accept in the Eden narrative but seem to cast aside in the rest of the scriptures.Were it not for these signatures most people would probably discard the scriptures as a product of human wisdom. They however accept them as such for the very reaons I have stated.proverbs 3:19 is only one aspect of a signature from God.This is an interesting contradiction. You qoute from the scriptures when they suit your purposes (Proverbs 3:19)and cast doubt on them (Exodus) when you can use them against themselves or some argument. My suggestion would be if the rest of the scriptures are probaly not the words of God, in your view, then quit using them in such an gross and unfair manner.D Bertot

bertot: “Observable physical evidence” does not require “faith”.You are asking me to show you “the breath of God in the wind.” To begin with, I cannot “show you the wind.” The wind and the air is that which the human eye “looks through.” Therefore, we cannot “see” the wind. The best we can do is see what the “wind” affects and moves. The “wind” in and of itself does not make a sound; that which the wind blows around and/or through creates the sound the “wind” makes.Gen. 2:7 states that God “breathed the breath of life into the human nose,” and that breath caused the human to become “a breathing creature.” This links God’s breath to life. All animals that are called “breathing creatures” have also received God’s breath of life. In Gen. 7:21 & 22 this point is made quite clear: All flesh died that moved on the earth - birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures, and all humans; everything on the dry land in whose noses was the breath-spirit of life died. Now we can turn to the statement in Job 27:3 “as long as my breath is in me thus the spirit of God in my nose.”The above biblical excerpts present a very good case for “the breath of God in the wind.”I can only physically show you God’s breath-spirit-wind of life by requesting that you place a plastic bag securely over you head and measure the time you can mortally exist by breathing nothing more than human breath.If the biblical and physical evidence I have presented above is not enough to at least open your mind to the possibility that the “wisdom of God employed by God to create the earth” is in fact found on planet earth (and not some supernatural, imaginary event or world) then it would seem that you are not willing to open your mind.All the best,
Ger

I agree with you AM, calm down. However,This is exacally what I was trying to convey to you. I dont disagree that there is "signature" in the Eden narrative only that it is vauge. One may be able to use physical properties to imply or suggest the existence of God, but these are not "anomolous" enough to close the door so to speak on any doubt as being inspired by Deity or the supernatural. The rest of the scriptures carry this sort of "signature", the Eden narrative does not. You illustrations have only to do with physical parameters in conjuntion with an idea or concept. I do agree with you. But the signature should be something that the individual could not possibly know outside of supernatural influence as is indicated inthe rest of the scriptures.D Bertot

True. But because you have never experienced anything in connection with the "eternal" or "spiritual", it would be illogical to assume you are even remotley correct in your assumption when comparing physical to spiritual. You can only assume or guess, this my friend is Faith, wehther you like it or not.To qoute a friend of mine. "when one can experience the eternal directly without any doubt that such is the case then all doubt will be removed". This you or no one else has done from simply a human standpoint, your only guessing (Faith), it not an ugly word AM, its only Human.D Bertot

I owe, I owe, I owe, its off to work I go. See you in a while there, freak show, Ha, Ha.D Bertot

bertot:I'm calm, my friend.It would be helpful if you could present to me what you perceive as Let's discuss a couple examples of this "supernatural influence" signature conveyed in a couple other scriptures.All the best,
Ger

IamJoseph: You wrote: The information cited comes from the study of the Dead Sea Scriptures. I never implied that the Pharisees were willing to worship Roman emperors and/or gods.
The Pharisees were lay-teachers, not Temple priests. The Temple priests were the Zadokite Sadducees. When the Second Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, 70 AD, the Sadducean Priesthood was annihilated - according to the historical documents I have studied. Some Pharisaic teachers were killed by the Romans, while others escaped and faded into the Jewish populace. Those Pharisaic teachers who survived became the foundation of Rabbinic Judaism. However, not all Jews accepted the Pharisaic-Rabbinic teachings and oral laws. The Essenes, Zealots, and the followers of the messianic leader of the Second Jewish Revolt, Bar Kokhba (132 - 135 AD) and later the Karaites, all regarded the Hellenistic non-biblical laws of the Pharisaic-Rabbinic traditions as false, seductive, ramblings not supported by the Hebrew Torah. The premise of Pharisaic “false teachings” to which I refer is based in the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is the Polemics of the Essenes that date from as early as the Hasmonean era which began around 164 BC. As for the Pharisaic belief of Monotheism, this too has been brought into question regarding the Pharisaic belief in “bodily resurrection” and the “immortality of the human soul,” as well as the Tanakh scriptures they assisted in canonizing which contained references to the supernatural being of “evil”, Satan. The territory referred to as “Palestine” has always existed. I was not referring to a particular “nation-state.”All the best,
Ger

The pharisees did not accept the Pauline doctrines, even though they were secularised and exploited benefits from Rome. In 70 CE, while there were mutually exclusive warring jewish factions and groups in Judea, which paved the way for the destruction by weakening their positions - nonetheless, the pharisees, as well as the nasserites who had a pre-pauline following for Jesus, also perished under Rome.Eventually, the war with rome was vested in the refusal of all jewish groups to worship a roman image - the uniting factor which saw the demise of over a million Jews. This event was about belief and the charge of heresy; all who never perished seccumbed to Rome's decree - and those who prevailed will call the Jews bad guys rather than face the truth of this event. The scrolls do not give the entire scenario. Eventually, all Jewishness, its teachings, the Hebrew language, the OT - was forbidden by Rome, with no immunity for pharisees or Pauline christines - and this continued against Jews when the church came to power; the charge of heresy was applied only to Jews eventually. The 'historical' factors of this event is best seen in Josephus.Re Palestine, this name was not used till 135 CE. Prior to this time, in some instances, the Greeks referred to the entire region as Palestina-Syria; but this was inclined with the original, real Philistines, which were kin to the greeks [Agean origin]. It has no connection to the term palestine being resurrected by Rome, which is the name adopted today. The original philistines disipitated 1000 BCE, via a war with King David, which is 1,135 years before this name was re-cast by Rome.IOW, the hellinist greeks referred to the entire region as philistine, while the Romans saught to negate the memory of Israel and Judea by applying this name to Judea and israel. There is no cnnectivity between these two events. Today, many in Arabia exploit theis history by siting that israel was always called Palestine; many anti-Israel advocates and media use this tactic by denoting a phrase of 'common usage', to negate Israel's history as Palstinian. A desired falsehood takes precedence of a disdained truth. One must wonders how the truth setting one free applies here.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

AM writes I am fine with doing this, however, there were a couple of items you referenced in your posts, that I would like answered. You said the writer of the Eden narrative had knowledge of the prehistoric time frame that oculd not be known at his time. What was this information? You also stated there was much more evidence from the narrative tha suggested other than "human imput". that you could present it if necessary. That would be great.Instead of me typing out all of this information and references I suggest going to the website "apologeticspress.org", type in the search engine, "In defense of the Bibles inspiration", this one is dated 2005, by Bert Thompson, PhD. The main categories are "unity of the Bible", Factual accuracy of the Bible", 'Biblical prophecy" and pay close attention to the category, "The scientific foreknowledge of the Bible". this should get us started.D Bertot

Im sorry type in "science in the Bible" and "In defense of the Bibles inspiration" is no. 13, dated 2005D Bertot

quote:

---

the “wisdom of God employed by God to create the earth” is in fact found on planet earth (and not some supernatural, imaginary event or world) then it would seem that you are not willing to open your mind.

---

Actually, what is natural is more super-natural than what is ascribed to the term super-natural. A seed becoming a tall tree, is a greater feat than the sea splitting. If there was a sea on Jupiter, conceivably, man could split that sea - but he could not make a seed to become a tree by his own devices, other than nature making it happen.The other factor of the means of creation being found on the earth, is a yes and a no. The elements are found here, but the workings of those elements cannot be seen as earthly: at one time, those workings did not exist, nor do we see them elsewhere. We cannot positively allocate life to evolution, same as we cannot say a car is the result of man's ingenuity - because we cannot explain where that ingenuity comes from.Man is not solely responsible for inventing cars - the whole works, which includes man, the elements, their attributes, the recipient and intergrated factors which only happens in accordence with its due times, and the surrounding environment - all become intergrated to a point where the original construct of this whole works is not explainable. There is the 'X' factor in the critical and pivotal points, which cannot be explained, save for the allocation of an external intrusion, but which we allocate to 'nature'.But there is really no such thing as nature - it is only a placebo to represent the inexplicable.

bertot:

quote:

---

AM writes: Let's discuss a couple examples of this "supernatural influence" signature conveyed in a couple other scriptures.

---

I’ll do my best. The Hebrew clause, “ nepesh chayah” is only used to denote “a breathing brute animal. The author of the Hebrew Eden Narrative employs this clause at the end of Gen. 2:7 to describe the mortal state of the human archetype after God breathed the breath of mortal life into its nose(s). The Hebrew Eden Narrative’s author also uses this clause, “ nepesh chayah” at the conclusion of Gen. 2:19 where it describes the mortal state of the beasts of the field and flying creatures of the heavens. This strongly suggests that the human archetype of Gen. 2:7 and the brute animals of Gen. 2:19 are both regarded as “ nepesh chayah = breathing brute animals. This similarity is not altered until Gen. 2:23 when the author refers to the human archetype by the designation, “ >iysh” which denotes “an extant human individual. The author does not employ this term until after the newly constructed “helper” is associated with the sleeping human archetype.Overlaying this narrative context onto the archeological & paleontological data found on Mt. Carmel a congruent relationship between the two can be observed.The Gen. 2:7 through 2:22 human-like “ nepesh chayah = breathing brute animal corresponds with the oldest brute animal human-like skeletal remains discovered on Mt. Carmel.The Gen. 2:23 through 3:6 human beings describe as not yet having attained the knowledge that enables them to become “as one” from God (Gen. 3:22a) corresponds to the Cro-Magnon {a.k.a. Modern Human} skeletal remains discovered on Mt. Carmel.The Gen. 3:7 through 3:24 human archetype described as having attained the knowledge that enables them to become “as one” from God (Gen. 3:22a), and who are sent from the Holy Mountain of God “to till the ground from which it was taken” (Gen. 3:23) corresponds with the cultural artifacts and skeletal remains of the Neolithic agrarian-urbanized Natufian society discovered on Mt. Carmel.The paleontological “Missing Link” pertains to the gap in skull shape and therefore brain shape that exists between the oldest human-like brute animal and the Cro-Magnon {Modern Human} skulls that have as yet been discovered. Whereas the oldest human-like brute animal’s skull presents with high brow-ridges and a flat forehead”indicating an underdeveloped frontal lobe {creative intellect} of the brain”the Cro-Magnon skull presents low brow-ridges and a raised forehead”indicating a highly developed frontal lobe {creative intellect} of the brain. There have been no skulls found by paleontologists that indicate the transition from the “flat forehead” to the “raised forehead”, and that evolutionary gap in the human fossil record is the paleontological “Missing Link.” The Hebrew Eden Narrative fills that evolutionary gap {a.k.a. “Missing Link”} with the “deep sleep” at which time God endows the brute animal human-like being with the creative aspect of God, thus enabling the human-like being to become “fully human” (a.k.a. Cro-Magnon: Modern Human). I stated that there was much more evidence from the Hebrew Eden Narrative that suggested “not only ”human input’.”AM wrote in Post #62

quote:

---

Let me ask you to do something; try to think of “Life” as not being “mortality.” Think of “Life” as being that which “mortality” exists within. Mortality has a beginning, middle, and an end. “Life” was, is, and will be always; continuously.
The awesome conclusions, discernments, understandings, and comprehensions the author of the Hebrew Eden Narrative is conveying to us did not merely or solely or only come from his ego-oriented brain functions. The “Sublime Mystery” within him and within the natural-wilderness in which he existed apparently moved him past his “ego” and into a mental state that few human beings ever experience. No one can do this alone, any more than anyone gives birth to their own bodies or single handedly conjure an image of themselves. The Sublime Mystery of Life moved”body and mind”the author of the Hebrew Eden Narrative, and when so “moved” the author perceived aspects of the Sublime Reality in which he lived that remain as true and real today as they were when the narrative was composed. Here again the terms “Eternal/Spiritual” can be appropriately applied.

---

Let’s try to get the above quote clear to both of us first, then we can go from there. I’ll go to this cite and see what I can bring back with me.All the best,
Ger

bertot: I went to the site and brought back the following quote. Please carefully read my response.The following is a quote from Bert Thompson Ph.D. at the website "apologeticspress.org", #13. In defense of the Bibles’ inspiration:

quote:

---

“Numerous passages indicate that Moses wrote the Pentateuch (2 Chronicles 34:14; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 13:1; Exodus 17:14; John 5:46; Mark 12:26).”

---

The Pentateuch consists of - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, & Deuteronomy.The claim that “Moses wrote the Pentateuch” {a.k.a. THE TORAH} would suggest that all of God’s Commandments and Ordinances regarding “the words of the book of the law” were written, known and understood by God’s chosen people long before the reign of the Judean King, Josiah in 622 BC. Exodus 20:3 - 6 regarding God’s Commandments: “You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything this is in heavens above, or the is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (NRSV); and Deuteronomy 5:7 - 10 & Chapter 13 were written by Moses and were well know and completely understood by God’s chosen people before and shortly there after they entered “The Promised Land” around 1200 BC.However, the Old Testament Book of 2nd Kings clearly states that the high priest, Hilkiah - high priest of King Josiah - said to the secretary Shaphan, “I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD” (2 Kings 22:8). In Hebrew that “found” book is referred to as: hasopher sepher hatorah = The Book of the Writings of THE TORAH. This would suggest that either THE TORAH had been misplaced and lost within the house of the LORD for hundreds of years”which sounds rather unlikely”or that THE TORAH itself was not written until the reign of the Judean King, Josiah. The definite article prefix on the Hebrew term torah thus hatorah designates that this is not just any “law”, for the definite article prefix denotes “THE LAW”. The definite article prefix on the Hebrew term sopher thus hasopher designates that this is not just a “book”, for the definite article prefix denotes “The Book” of “THE LAW”.2nd Kings Chapter 23 is dedicated to King Josiah ordering the vessels made for the Canaanite god Baal and the Canaanite goddess Asherah being brought out of the temple of the LORD and being disposed of. And breaking down the houses of the male temple prostitutes that were in the house of the LORD. And so on, and so forth.All of 2nd Kings Chapter 23 shows that Judea had been living without “THE TORAH” for many, many years. That, in and of itself, suggest that not just the Judeans were more than a little careless with “Commandments” of the LORD, but that the Judeans who were alive in the seventh century BC were living uninformed regarding the “Commandments” of the LORD, but also that the LORD was not doing a very good job of looking after “His Chosen People.”Needless to say, all of the above points to the reasonable conclusion that “Moses was in fact NOT the author of THE TORAH {a.k.a. the Pentateuch).All the best,
Ger