Biblical Translation--Eden, 2

To Autunman. Thanks for getting this accomplished. there was a certain man who went ot worship one, his wife stayed home due to illnes. Upon his return, she asked what the preacher talked about he said Satan. She asked well what did he say about Satan, to which he replied, well I didnt understand much of what he said, but I think he was AGIN EM.Now I didnt understand to much of what you said from an exact word definition, but I think you AGIN, the scriptures as being the actuall word of God. Let me make this observation before procceding. I sit your intention here to discuss only the words and ideas in the text or are or you wanting to draw conclusions from these definitions and debate those. Ill await your reply.There are however, a few things I would like to point out as we get the proverbial ball rolling. You seem to venerate the Hebrew language aboveall others, you call it the language of our ancestors, so to speak. Yet you have admitted you study no other languages to this or any degree really. Arent there olser languages than Hebrew, from a world point of view, shouldnt the older ones be given the same venration?Secondly, can we say you are justified in drawning such hard fast CONCLUSIONS about who actually existed and who didnt, just based on a name. Can you really say there was actually no Adam or actual Garden just based on the definition. Wasnr Thaddeus, called the Son Of Thunder, for example, a metephorical reference. What would be your other support? For a person that does not like to draw conclusions, yours are way to categorical and pinpointed. What do you say.?Thirdly, even if these were not actual people , would this some how invalidate the scriptures as the word of GOD?Im not sure how you are wanting to proceed, so maybe this is a start. If this not the direction you want to go please let me know.D Bertot

To AM I will respond to this post in a while, have some other things to at present. I hope you understood my meaning in the other thread, when I was speaking about he method of debate. I was saying simply that when speaking about Biblical things it is not possible to discuss only the words in there text, from a clinical point. A person certainly may BEGIN with this type of approach, but will be forced to slowly inculcate, things like providence, intervention and the supernatural. You may be hard pressed to find anyone that wants to discuss only the words, from strickly a historical context and then leave it at that. Biblical studies HAS to include, the supernatural because it is woven into the category Bible Study. For example you said: So, a person viewing this statement automatically percieves two things. A. That while a clinical and technical approach is initally necessary, it immediatley implies that: B. One could forceably argue that a secondary approach of the idea or belief in providence could and should be involved. In other words, you need to rule this out by a logical and factual demonstration as to why it should not be included.Let me demonstrate this from a practicle standpoint. It is your contention that we do not have the original scriptures that Moses transcribed. Implying that it is inaccurate at best. This is most certainly not proving your point. Numerous scholars would not agree with you. Due to the fact that I would conclude that based on all the information, on how the scribes transmitted and perserved what they believed to be the word of God, inconjunction with the dead sea scrolls your information or assumptions would therefore be, if nothing else, not necessarily true. Now you are welcome to present any and all technical info that you wish. I truely enjoy reading it. However, when we are done with the technical, are you willing toconsider another approach, that is well within REASON and comprehension. In other words is your sthe only correct approach?You keep saying yours is not the only approach, opinions or cosiderations, but when we present our position of how to approach God's word, the historical and providental, you complain that this is not valid. In other words I might acknowledge mentally that there are no original autographs and that words and languages change, but are you willing to see it from any other perspective.If one contends that the scriptures as the word of God can not be validated or invalidated, sounds like a person that is atleast open to other possibilites, than the clinical one. Agreedthanks againD Bertot

To AM, I will respond to these as soon as I can I have been on the other thread and doing some other things. To get started however, If I am not mistaken to 'Call on the name of the Lord', is not the same as calling him by name, it is appeal to his Authority, not his actual name, this would clear up the inconsistency. "Whosoever, calls on the name of the Lord, shall be saved",D BertotD

In an effort at times to find or show contradiction, people will avoid the obvious point that is trying to be made. It could very well be the case that Abraham himself did know the name of God and the THEM means the rest of Gods people in general. Moses could very well have been trying to show the status that Abraham(my favorite character in the OT) held in the place of God. Moses is described as the only one having seen the face of God.Further, Moses seems to have been the only one allowed to approach to the base of the mountain, demonstrating that God held him a special regard. Abraham, very well may knew Gods name, for heavens sake he probably conversed with him daily. Same with Adam. Oh yeah but he wasnt real, though, I forgot.So let me get this straight AM. When all of the minor details and every particle of inconsistency is answered, then you will come to the Lord. Just a thought not a argument.D Bertot

Another way of viewing the above texts is if you read them specifically as they are written in either you choose to use, is this. Moses is getting ready to go to Egypt, God is explaining to him that the 'Almighty God', goes before him, not someone with a simple name per say. Hence his meaning in verse 3 is, that He did not initially REVEAL himself to Abraham, Iasacc, or Jacob by his name intially, but by his authority as God almighty. It the context of the scriptures it makes perfect sense, "but by my name I did not make myself know to them", is not the same as saying he never told them his name at that or some other point. He intially revealed himself as God Almighty, to demonstrated who and what he was. In context it makes perfect sense.D Bertot

AM writes What I meant to say was , then you will see it as the word of God, not comt to GodTo continue what I was saying earlier, Gen 21 should be reliased as a time far removed in the future from Exodus 6. Moses was concerened how he was going to accomplish this task. God assures him tha he will present himself to Pharoah the same way he did to Abraham, Iassac, and Jacob. Not by name INITIALLY (at first contact, like Star Trek), but as God Almighty. God introduced himself as. I am the God of your father Abraham to Iasacc and Jacob to show his authority and power. Hence the statment or phrase "But by my mame Jeheovah, I was not known to them. he does not mean for ever and always. but simply at first meeting Certainly you can see that this only has reference to the initial meeting, as Gen 21 would certainly indicate later that Abraham, must have known his name. So how did God reveal himself to Pharoah, as "I am that I am." He clearly designates himself as existence itself, all that there is or can be, not by a designated name, simply to distinguish himself from someone else. Do you see the point.You are reading way to much into the text without looking at its context. So who what ever Bible we use your or mine the meaning is the same.D Bertot

To AM. Like yourself, I have got to get some things done. I will get to your last post on the other thread, 'Diety'. I will wait for your response here, that will be hatched out of the Nerdery of your massive brain. Ha, ha.D Bertot

I did not get a chance to see this one earlier. I must say this all due respect you cannot be serious about so silly an objection. When God desribes the steam or water, he is not saying that it was a continuous action 24/7 without end. It, no doubt, did this much like it would rain then stop and have a chance to dry. Simply because the sriptures say in the same or very next verse, that God formed man from the dust of the earth, it does not imply or mean this was done at a time when the ground was wet. It was no doubt done when it DRIED or at a time in the immediate future when it was dry.You are not really serious about these types of objections are you?D Bertot

I used the verses you quoted to me in your argument to formulate my argument. Were the verses you quoted in your post, the correct holy inspired Autunman translation or should I wait for them in another post. Were the verses you quoted in Gen 21 and Exodus 6 from the inspired version or not? If there is no accurate text, how do you know what we have is not accurate? How do you know what you use to complain about mine is correct . See the point.D Bertot

Why is 'on'completley different from 'by the' or 'with the', dont all three mean the samething, and could they not mean with or by Gods authority.I noticed you said 'correctly translated'. Is this the same BHS text you used earlier in Gen 21 and Exodus 6. How can you be sure it is correcly translated when you make the below statement. Again what source do you use to know that the BHS is not translated correcly. There seems to be a bit of circular reasoning going on here. Your source to know this is a quote from the unreliable non-historical Jesus Christ.D Bertot

AM,my friend I am truely sorry I did not mean to offend you. I get allitle carried away at times, sorry. It seems at times you can be so prfound at times, and at other times seem to make absolutley no sense. Dont let debating style upset you. I truely was trying to understand what you were saying.D Bertot

AM, thanks I have to be out for awhile. If I am unerstanding you correctly, you believe there is no acuurate text that would reflect what Moses and the prophets actuaaly said. Also, from earlier post you believe this to be the case, because you think everything was lost or not accuratley transscribed, correct? You further believe that the BSH are the most accurate based on ancient language but would say they still are not the true words of God, correct?
So you point out appaernt contradiction to show further contradiction. Correct?Am I following you correctly?D Bertot

AM Thanks for your very thourough responses, I will try to digest what yu are saying, there is going to be much confusion yet because I cannot even comprehend what your sources are you use are yet or the conclusions you are deriving form them. It will take me some time to read and re-read this to understnd what you are saying.I have plenty to do today, so I will print it out and study. In responses I may ask what this or that is again for clairification. You will get a response to all of this.My understanding of the appaernt contradictions you presented then to myself and others and our responses are not necessarily valid, not because our expositon of the scriptures you provided are incorrect but our responses are not based on anything really accurate. Am I correct in atleast this assumption. Is the conclusion you are intimating. You said" I see your point, but thats not the point". I believe you were intimating that while my answer to the contridiction about water and dust was correct it does not matter because my interpretation of the items is based on a LESS THAN ACCURATE TEXT CORRECT. Please forgive my repeatavness, your conclusions are often times very hard to follow.I will get back with you later.D Bertot

AM After I hung up I thought of a better way to state what I had just said. What was your initial resason for pointing out what you believe to be contradiction in Gen and Exodus. Simply stated why you did this. Please, a simple explanation will do, not a exposition in great length,, Ha Ha.D Bertot

AM How about we do it this way. I will respond to the entirity of these two very extensive post, without a reply from you until I am finished. That will allow the information to not be mixed up with alot of other question and items. The will allow you to take care of personl items or move to another thread, what do you say.Bertot writes AM saysI see what you are saying here, but it does not follow that, if I swear by the or with the name of God that I have to speak his name out loud. It is that, I simlpy am swearing by his name as a source of authority. You are mixing up my intial statement with the other ones about Gen and exodus. I specifacally said, he did know the name of God, but that has nothing to do with this argument. When he swore by the name of God, he simply appealed to his authority. Your above conclusion does not follow, from the words, On, By the, or With the. It most certainly could be as you say, but that is not the same as saying it must be.I dont expect you to answer this at present, but myself and Jaywill offered textual explanations to the contradictions you set out, but I dont remember a reply to them, except for the one you gave to Jaywill about the words Mud , Dirt, etc.I will continue on the rest of this and the other two big post, so if you could keep all of this under consideration and make a reply upon my completion. Ofcourse this is just a suggestion.D Bertot