Biblical Translation--Eden, 2

AM, This is also an interesting reply, it is ofcourse what I anticipated, I will review it as you did ours and get back to you in a few minutes. Im off work tonignt, so I can bore to tears, this evening, Ha, Ha , Ill be with you in a minute.D Bertot

bertot:I'm glad I responded with what you expected. I really didn't want to disappoint you.I am currently responding to you last post.I look forward to your reply.All the best,
GerEdited by autumnman, : I'm

bertot:My reply has gone on longer than I intended. I will reply to the remainder of your post if you ask me to. I will await you reply. I am uncertain how you are personally defining the mental faculty of “reason.” According to my understanding, and the dictionary definition of this mental faculty, “reason is abandoned” when an individual is no longer capable of distinguishing between good and evil, and truth and falsehood; when one is incapable of making independent discernments and judgments based upon the objective and/or empirical evidence at hand.That is my understanding of the “mental faculty of ”reason’”. Yes, of course an “omnipotent God” could “insure his people have that which he originally intended.” But, let’s take this “omnipotent God” concept one step further; being an “omnipotent God” he really would not have to rely on “ancient manuscripts that are composed in dead languages” in order to insure his people discern and comprehend what he originally intended; now would he. An “omnipotent God” could do anything but rely on ancient manuscripts written in dead languages. This is not me trying to be an arrogant idiot {arrogant, not; idiot, likely} presuming to tell an omnipotent God how he could best do his work, but rather I am expressing to you that this idea of an “omnipotent God” needing to preserve, protect and defend the Hebrew, Greek, and English Scriptures does not make a great deal of logical sense to me.I respect that you believe your above assertion. But, I do not agree with your above assertion.My way of approaching this particular idea is that this omnipotent God of all reality would communicate through all reality so that everyone could discern and understand what God was actually saying; for all reality would be the same reality for everyone who is a part of reality. Natural metaphors would be the manner in which this communication would be performed. “Dust, ground, fields, plants, herbs, trees, rivers, animals, humans” would be some of the natural metaphors that God would employ. As long as humans can focus their minds on God’s natural reality, God’s words could be discerned and understood by everyone. I think you missed my point. I probably was unable to make my point clear at that time. I’m probably still not able to make my point clear. But I’ll try.Human beings have been using the Holy Bible to justify and rationalize their actions and what they believe for thousands of years. Whether the Holy Spirit looked over the interpretive translation of the Hebrew OT or not, governments and religions, religious sects, and individuals have been using the Holy Bible for their own personal advancements for thousands of years. An omnipotent God could have nipped this self-centered behavior in the bud if He had wanted to; right? He did not; He is not. God is not getting involved.Question: Why would a jerk like myself, who is neither a Jew nor a Christian, study biblical Hebrew for thirty + years of his life? I really don’t know, and I’m the jerk doing it. All I can say is, I was driven - something inside of me caused me - to learn biblical Hebrew, and I am still driven to learn biblical Hebrew.Do I think everyone should learn biblical Hebrew? No. Do I think I am translating and interpreting everything correctly? No. Do I think the world will be a better place because of my efforts? No. Am I going to gain anything from any of this effort? No.I am studying the Heb. Tanakh because I feel I must. I am sharing with you some of what I have discovered, and you can take it or leave it. I am going to go on learning what I am learning regardless of what comes of our discussions. All that I gain from you through our discussions and debates is a set Christian perspective. I cannot win an argument with a set Christian perspective. I’m not trying to win. There is nothing to win.Do you see my point?All the best,
Ger

It wouldn't be at all difficult to comprehend but for the fact that you insert statements like: "There is a contradiction shown above" into your posts whilst arguing that you should say "There is an apparent contradiction shown above". A contradiction is one when agreed upon by all. Until then it's merely apparent. If you wonder why the confusion you might consider that it arises from reading what you write. For some reason you've taken up my using an example from Proverbs regarding fools as a back door way for me to suggest you are a fool. That was not my intent. For the record, I don't consider you a fool.Did God/didn't God? That's very black and white... when life and transliterated Hebrew are not at all like that. I've given a couple of clear examples of what might be called 'grey' - by way of illustration. You haven't attempted to address that point head on over these last posts - so I won't press on with it.

iano: Thanks for not regarding me as a "fool". However, sometimes I am a fool, whether I want to be or not. Sometimes I write like a fool, whether I want to or not. It just happens. I have learned in 58 years of being mortal sometimes either being a fool or behaving like one just seems to be part of the mix.I apologize for the confusion. I did not intentionally ignore your "grey" illustration. I have had my hands and mind full discussing the present subject with bertot and jaywill.Please feel free to "press on with it". I am truly interested, but often find myself somewhat limited.Give it another shot, and I'll try to engage with your suggestions.Regards,
Ger

The anmazing and unbelievable Autunman replies. Ofcorse I am just kidding there Holmes. I though you might enjoy alittle humor before I begin to bore you out of you skull.First let me say, that here on this thread, you really put me to work.. On the other one with those dag blasted Atheists, it was just general philisophical reasoning. here I have got to study and work. By the way did you ever teach offically.We could spend all day arguing about the words Fathers and Patriarchs but any thinking person can see that these terms apply in the general sense to all those that fell into that category before and after Abraham. it may be the case that Gen 12 is the first itme God mentions the covenant with Abraham, but is not until chapter 15 until he establishes his covenant with him. Again the concept of a covenant has nothing to do with what constitutes a Patriarch of father. God established a covenant wtih Noah and he built alters and worshiped God he same way Abraham did. Noah was a Patriarch and a forefather. In Genesis chapter 48 Israel (jacob) says to Joseph, "I am about to die, but God will be with you and take you back to the land of your Fathers. And to you as ONE who is OVER your brothers, I give to you the ridge of land, I took from the Amorites with my sword and bow". I dont think Jacob only had in mind here Abraham and Isacc, but all of the predecessors, inclusive in the exclamation. Jacob establishes Josephs supremecy over the others by both word and deed. Gen 49:26 establishes this without doubt. Jacob passed his leadership to Joseph. I dont believe so. As the scriptures I have just quoted indicate. further, the sons of Jacob were themselves patriarchs and fathers. After perfering blessings on them Gen 49:28 says, All these are the twelve tribes of Israel and this what thier father said to them when he blessed them, giving each the blessing that was appropriate to HIM". Exodus chapter one says Joseph and all that generation died. Indicating that the tribes and thier leaders (Patriarchs) ruled until the time of Moses. Again, the covenant that God made with Abraham has nothing to do with the obvious history of Fathers and patriarchs listed and layed out in the book of Genesis. When the term Fathers is used it is used to indicate the totality of those ancestors, as the scriptures I have indicated above indicate. Now, it is true that A, I and J are included in that expression and the covenant as well, but one whould be unjustified in claiming that it only has to do with them exclusively. Each of the sons of Jacob were patriarchs over the tribes. Joseph himself was a Father and Patriarch in both the physical and Spiritual sense. In other words there were Fathers (ancestors) and patriarchs after jacob and before Moses. the scriptures indicate that there was a considerable amount of time in that transiton period before Moses. Again, I dont think Jacob was refering to only Abraham and Isacc, when he told Joseph he would return to the land of his Fathers. Gen 48:18-19 cooroborates this point as well. gen 49:10, "the scepter will no depart from Judah, nor the rulers staff from between his feet." Wrong. the scriptures , the totality of them do not bear this out as I have demonstrated above and can from other passages. it is certain that the covenant and A, I and Jacob were the focal point of all history to that point, this is why God uses it or speaks to and about them in this manner. The covenant and those mentioned in Exodus 6 represent the pillars of all that has gone before and all that was at present. However, Exodus 3:15, is most certainly a commentary on Exodus 6;2-3. he says in 3:15, "This is my name, forever, the name for which I am to be remembered from GENERATION to GENERATION."There are numerous other passages where God addreses himself in this manner, not inclucating the covenant specifically. Again, the first argument I advanced about the use of a 'synechode', most certainly applies in this situation. The other 'fathers', like Joseph, Levi, Judah, etc, are most certainly included in that expression.Am I correct when I see the scriptures make a distinction and division in vs 16 of chapter three when it represents as, "The Lord, the God of your Fathers-the God of Abraham", etc. the others are most certainly included. It is a figure of speech, meaning "a part for the whole, the whole for a part. he was imply saying I did it one way, then I did it another way.For the passage to have any meaning at all in Exodus 6, it would have to involve more than A, I and J. because if God made his name known to Abraham and others, as the scriptures indicate he did, who are the ones he did not do this with? these would be ofcourse Abraham's ancestors. See the point.D Bertot

AM,I will get to your Esoteric, John Newland, 'One Step Beyond', post here in alittle while. Just kidding ther buddy. I will answer it in a while. Alittle while for me could be 2 0r 3 in the morning though, so dont wait up. It will take me a few hours to decipher the double talk and incoherent concepts. Ha, Ha.D Bertot

bertot:Nice work. And, much of it I agree with. However, I still have one question to ask you:You wrote: [qs]these would be ofcourse Abraham's ancestors.[/q]To which of Abraham's ancestors did YHWH God not reveal his name, and also establish His covenant, giving them the land of Canaan?Again. Nice work. I am pleased and impressed. To me, this is study.All the best,
Ger

AM, do you mean ancestors or those after Abraham? If you mean progenitors, I would say, Adam, Terah, Noah and others. In other words no one knows when he started to do it before not doing it. but he appears to have done it with atleast Abraham. is this what you are asking?D bertot

bertot: The covenant with "them", to given "them" the land of Canaan (Ex. 6:4).
Who before Abraham did God make this covenant giving them the land of Canaan?My research suggests that Abram was the first patriarch God made the covenant to give Abraham's descendents the land of Canaan.What does your research indicate?All the best,
GerEdited by autumnman, : No reason given.

AM writesNone I am aware of. I would agree with this.D BertotD Bertot

bertot:Ex. 6:3 & 4 go together. God established his covenant with them {Abrahm, Isaac, and Jacob}, to give them the land of Canaan.I feel as though we have reached a place in our discussion of this subject that we can both stop for a while and contemplate what we have shared with one another. If you agree, let me know. If you want to keep discussing this subject, I would be more than happy to do so.You had mentioned in an earlier post that you were working on a reply to one of my earlier posts. I will wait for that reply, and respond in kind if need be.I would really like to make our next subject focus on the "location of the garden in Eden." But that can wait until we all feel as though it is time to continue on.Thank you for all that you have shared with me. I have learned a great deal. And I am looking forward to all that you will share with me in the future.All the best,
Ger

To AM, I had maintained early on in these posts that these passages, in Exodus could be viewed from the standpoint that God was simply saying, I did not INITIALLY reveal my name to , Abraham, Issac and Jacob. But Genesis would indicate that he eventually did, do this at some point.If one argues that, the statement includes Isacc and Jacob as the passages indicates, then it would be understood that God only revealed himself to one at a time, using Abraham as the patriarch, revealing his messages to him alone, even when Isacc was alive. This could have been his proceedure and the meaning in the text. Then later, he could have made himself known to Isacc and Jacob inturn, initially revealing himself as God Almighty, then later revealing his name to those two, the same way he did Abraham, by his name.I have never maintained that the verses did not go together. I only maintained that the covenant and the way he revealed himself did not NECESSARILY have to go together. God probably made his name known to Abraham, long before he established his covenant with him, would you agree? Because they go together in the verse, does not mean they have to go together in fact or reality.I argued the point of a synecdoche, due to the fact that the pillars, Abraham, Isacc and Jacob are often used in this manner, when God address himself to someone. I understand the meaning in the context, that he would follow through on this promise to Abraham and he used it as an assurance to the children of Israel coming out of the bondage of Egypt.I was simply amazed at the begging of this thread, that you could not see that there was not even the hint of a contradiction, let alone an actual one, [given the explanation I gave above.]Some interpretation using the totality of scriptures has to be applied after, you technically examine and scrutinize all the words.Using Aukkams razor 9did I spell his name correctly0, the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one, right?D Bertot

Autunman, I am fine with moving on, if that is your desire and the others as well, it is ofcourse your thread and you should be able to direct it as you see fit. If you would though, take at a second look at my last post, no. 103, and tell what you think of this expositon of those two verses. I made this argument early on and I think your estimation of it, was that you thought we were not alowed to proceed with our own interpretations, or something of that nature.However, take a second look at this exigesis and tell me if you think this is an adequate interpretation and explanation of the appearent contradiction in Gen and Exodus. Read carefully what I have said and give me your estimation of my anaylasis.Lastly, not that its any of my buisness, but I noticed you and iano, exchanging some pretty heavy blows right there at the end. I dont want to speculate what the result of that is, however, I would encourage you both not to let those emotions affect your willingness to talk to eachother or discuss the topic. I have have been doing this so long, I dont even pay attention to the insults, innuendos, wise cracks or sarcasm anymore, I simply move forward, till there is absolutley no possible way to proceed any longer. I find that alot of times people on these different threads, simply throw thier information out there and they never really ask questions or put the other side of thier poisition to the test. or people get offended by something someone said or the way they said it. its all part of the process to me. The ole, whatever doesnt kill you will make you stronger principle. Going back and forth is part of the process and part of the sheer fun to me. Oh yeah, we are suppose to learn something to, I almost forgot about that. Ha, Ha.D Bertot

Autumnman writes Yes this was exacally my meaning with respect to you. No ofcourse, Im kidding. I simply meant the common use, not you over dramatized, highly srutinized examination of it, Ha Ha. The words, preserve, protect and defend, carry with them the connotaion that this was a struggle for him. nothing of the sort, should be understood in this context. I understand that it is your blief and position that we do not have that which was originaly written, but I maintain that we do and that has been what our whole discussion was about. How about the word ENSURED, instead of PROTECT and DEFEND. Ensured, carries with it the connotation of care rather than struggle and him NEEDING to do this or that.I am not sure how you think indirect interpretation from things in nature would help anyone come even a REMOTE understanding of what God wishes of them in ethier thier lives or even in the aspect of Spirituality. When people continue to come up with very different opinions, very different concepts on what God might or might not be saying in the scripture, or whether God actually said something or not, using the NATURAL REALITY method, what do we do then? it is not even reasonable to assume that people could even come to a direct or indirect understanding of God outside the Bible about anything, using natural Metaphors and trying to understand and interpret Gods word in this manner. I certainly respect your opinion to believe anything you wish, however, when we are trying to find a common ground about the possible method of understanding the scriptures, the above example you offer, streches th imagination. You are saying in essence then that percieving nature as a result of Gods hand, and observing how those things operate that the answers will just fall into place. This is a sharp contrast from the person who chastises us when we use the expository verses the interpress methods.Explain to me a little clearer, how focusing on NATURAL reality, will allow everyone to discern Gods words. Thats a pretty clear cut statement. You still dont understand the concept of Free Will and Gods omnipotence. How much should God interfer in the affairs of men. There are literally acts of violence and misconduct taking place every second of every day, should he intervine at every second. People have always used Gods plans and words to misrepresent and use them for thier own selfish purposes. One might as well ask where was God, when Satan was hatching out his plan. having Gods words and choosing to ignore them are two different things all together. Your time table is not Gods timetable. He literally gave the people of Sodom every chance down to the very last moment, as was witnessed by Abraham's pleading for them. God will nip things in the Bud as you put it, in his own time. "Do not decieve yourself, God is not mocked, whatsoever, a man sowes that shall he also reap"., I to believe this is NOT a contest and your study of the Hebrew is wonderful. but if your implication above is that God directed you to do this, then fine. but I would admonish you not to try and find to many direct answers to the questions of life and spirituality outside of his word. this why we are in the messs we are now, people dont want to accept or believe they are Gods words and they look for answers in other sources, like those you have offered in this post. Which brings us essentially full circle to the original question. If the scriptures say God said something or did something , can it be trusted to be true. To put it very politley without offending, your explanation about the NATURAL REALITY, while meant with well intentions, only muddies the water further.ThanksD Bertot