Original Works

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidelined

​

Ok This is where things get interesting.

---

Actually, it's where things get sticky. Not only is there no unanimous consensus as to which witnesses best represent the earliest text, but there is also no unanimous consensus regarding translation.There are as many interlinear translations available as there are arguments as to which one is best. You just have to do some research and decide for yourself.Along with an interlinear edition, however, I would also recommend Strong's exhaustive concordance. Many modern interlinear editions mark each word in the text with Strong's reference numbers as an aid to beginners. I also recommend you get at least two well attested analytical lexicons.Then, if you're not broke yet. You will need some basic language texts so that you can begin to familiarize yourself with the language. This will become essential as you progress; as simply looking up an individual word out of context is an invitation to error.Scholars spend years of intense immersion to become scholars, but in a couple of years (with some hard work), you can at least become proficient enough to understand what it is that the scholars are talking about.Good luck,Amlodhi

Hi sidelined,

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidelined

​

Among the books of the bible has there been any study done recording the areas that everybody agrees upon for interpretation. . .?

​

. . .it would behoove the people who are aware of the shaky foundations of the structure of the bible that this become a more common knowledge.Perhaps greater open debate on television on a regular basis.

---

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. One need only look at the myriad different opinions that are posted in response to any issue on this forum.For instance: the first sentence of the bible.1) Did God originally create the "heavens and the earth" as we know them and then later create the sun, moon and stars? Or did God simply create the matter and space from and in which he later formed the actual spheres.2) Is the term "Elohim" a proper plural, a royal plural, a singular title or a name of God? If Elohim is plural why is it linked to a singular, masculine verb? If it is a compound singular does it refer to the Trinity?3) Is the "gap theory" correct in asserting that God originally created the "heavens and the earth" and then, following some cataclysm, only long ages later brooded over the waters of the now void and formless earth?4) Do the "heavens" in this sentence refer to the cosmos as we know it, or simply to the canopy of the sky? Why does the Hebrew term "Shemayim" use the "dual" grammatical form (as does "ears", "hands" etc.)? Are there two and only two heavens? If so where are these two heavens divided and what do they consist of?5) Why is the term "Elohim" used alone in this sentence when Gen. 2 consistently uses "YHWH Elohim"?6) Did moses write this sentence? Did he use sources? When was it written; edited?7)Is it allegorical?8)Is it the direct and inerrant Word of God?9) Is it myth? Was it borrowed from the Sumerians/Babylonians or did they all use an earlier common source?Well, you get the idea; and this is only the first sentence.Beware of the sure and easy answer; these are usually espoused only by those who seldom crack open the book and therefore have never understood the issues to begin with.Namaste'Amlodhi