Biblical Translation--Eden, 2

Are you not being a little rigid?If Adam knew Eve (sexually) does that mean he never met her before he knew her sexually? If the Hebrew word 'know' has shades of meaning (in the area of deepening intimacy), then we might suppose Eve making her body known to Adam (by stepping out from behind a tree) is a different application of the word to her making her body known to Adam (in the form likely to lead to the manufacture of children)Closer to home. God can make his name Jehovah Jirah known to me in the same sense 007 makes his name known, that is; "Bond, James Bond". He simply states what the case is. Or he can make his name, Jehovah Jirah, known to me whilst incorporating a demonstration of it's meaning.I would know his name in two different ways. Or if only knowing it in one way, it wouldn't preclude someone else knowing it in another.

I understand and do not contest this.- This doesn't really address the point made - which had to do with the ways in which a person can know Gods name. There is the titular end of the spectrum and the experiential end of the spectrum. Different ways of knowing can be encompassed by the same use of words.Certainly you could insist that the same sense of knowing is involved in both cases - rendering a contradiction. But there is no particular need to do so that I can see.I agree that Abraham knew God intimately but perhaps Moses knew him more intimately? Beyond this discussion though..

It's not a matter of interpretation for I am not suggesting what kind of knowing is involved in both cases. What should be apparent is that there are different ways of knowing the same something (and making the same something known) even though the words used are the same. You do say the contradiction is an apparent one and you have indeed shown 100% that there is an apparent contradiction. The question is "where to now?" It would appear that you haven't enough information available to get behind what kind of 'knowing' is referred to in both cases - so the apparent contradiction cannot be rendered an actual one.Are you speculating that there is only one manner by which Gods name YHWH can be known?

If you understood what I was saying then you would see it makes little difference. An unbelieving person who knows that God is described as Jehovah Jireh will not know God as Jehovah Jireh experientially. In that case, God can say that he has not made himself known as Jehovah Jireh (experientially). It doesn't alter the person knowing him as Jehovah Jireh (descriptively). Neither you nor I have the luxury of the words in brackets with which to clarify whether the apparent contradiction is one in fact based on this limited text alone.- I was using the sense of the word apparent given below. I thought it would be apparent that this was the sense I intended. But apparently not .

quote:

---

3. Appearing as such but not necessarily so; seeming: an apparent advantage

---

A contradiction at first flush. But not necessarily so. That is how I meant it.- If accepting it possible not to know Gods name in one fashion whilst at the same time knowing it in another then where is the problem? All God said what that his name wasn't made known. He didn't say in what fashion is wasn't made known.- I remember a discussion here (unto blue-in-the-face) about this apparent contradiction:

quote:

---

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

​

Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

---

Do I answer the fool or not? Seems like a catch 22. The apparent contradiction is resolved when you use different possible senses of the word 'according'. Just like I am arguing here for the word "know". The alternative is to insist on exact same sense and hold the apparent* contradiction.. er ..apparent**.(* = my sense of the word apparent. ** = your sense of the word apparent)

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.