Biblical Translation--Eden, 2

To Admin:This New Topic - Biblical Translation”Eden, 2 - is a continuation of the discussions and debates regarding the words {Heb., Greek, Latin & Eng.} employed within the various Biblical Scriptures, as well as the English words employed to interpret, expound, explain, and understand what the Biblical Scriptures are conveying. Lexicographic, and dictionary meanings of certain words are contrasted with the vernacular {everyday, ordinary, and subculture} terminology often used by religious sects, churches, and denominations when referring to the Biblical Scriptures.The term “lexicon” comes from the Latin - lex = agreement & icon = image - and in the context of word usage and definition, the term “lexicon” denotes the agreement of literary and spoken ideas and the images they convey. Without an agreed upon meaning and definition of words, ideas, and images the art of human communication could not exist.It is the purpose of this New Topic to continue the discussions and debates that are focused on the definitions and various uses of the words central to the translations and interpretations of the Biblical Scriptures. Once an agreement can be reached regarding the definitions and uses of particular words that are employed in biblical discussions, perhaps the sense, meanings and intents of the Biblical Scriptures themselves will become clearer.Thanks so much,
Ger{Note: This topic is intended as a sequel to the currently 300+ message Biblical Translation--Eden topic. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note, above.

Admin.I posted this New Topic suggestion according to what I was told by the Admin Director. If more is needed please let me know so I can make the additions or changes so our discussions can continue.I hope to hear from you as soon as possible.Thanks so much,
Ger/Autumnman

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.I'll and a link to this topic at the end of part 1.AdminnemooseusEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Add subtitle and comments.

bertot: Now that Admin has helped us get our “New Topic” going I will respond to post 297.You asked the following questions; Certainly Ezra and Nehemiah appear to have been “real people.” I have researched them to some degree, but what I have always been most interested in is Aramaic-Hebrew Texts attributed to the names, Ezra and Nehemiah. The Exile of 586 BCE when Judea fell to Babylon was a turning point in Jewish History. The Jewish people lost their land, their independence, their literary and spoken language, and much of their identity as a people along with much of their pre-Exilic history. The precise individuals who struggled to rebuild the Jewish sense of who they were and are as a people are less important than the historical fact that the Jewish people emerged from the Exile in Babylon and began rebuilding their lives as well as the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem {completed 516 BCE). Each of these Hebraic appellations have very specific meanings. That these particular Hebrew names actually refer to “real, historical personalities” must be answered in a number of different ways taking one “name” at a time.1) Adam is only found in the Greek Septuagint. In Hebrew a personal name cannot take the definite article prefix. The definite article prefixed form ha>adam is predominantly used throughout the Eden Narrative. Of the twenty-four applications of the masculine noun {twenty-three of which directly refer to the human archetype} twenty are the definite article prefixed form ha>adam. This then sets the context of the three preposition prefixed forms la>adam which would be understood as presenting with the definite article. Nowhere in the Hebrew OT is the definite article prefixed form ha>adam ever used to denote “one male (or androgynous) human (like) being. Therefore, the Greek appellation Adam does not refer to a real, historical personality.
2) Noah, Hebrew nocha is derived from the verb nucha means “to rest, to deposit, to leave, to abandon, to let alone.” In the context of The Flood, the Hebraic appellation nocha indicates the “abandoning” or the old world, and being deposited in the new world. Noah was not a historical personality, but rather a legendary character employed by a story teller to make a number of specific points.
3) Abram & Abraham: Abram Hebrew >abram lterally means “exalted father”, thus, >ab= father + ram to be exalted. It seems rather unlikely that his father therach, denoting a type of ibex, would name his son >abram=”exalted father”. But, in Jewish/Hebraic folklore it makes perfect sense that the first patriarch of Israel would be named >abram=exalted father. In Gen. 17 God tell Abram that he a “father of many nations” and so changes his name to Abraham which is a Hebrew clause: >a= I {God} bar=select/purify ham=them. Through God’s covenant with Abraham the nation of Israel and the nations of all the Arabian tribes in the East are said to be of Abraham’s seed. Abraham and his wife Sarah {noble lady} are legendary personalities of Jewish/Hebraic folklore.
4) Moses, in Hebrew mosheh was indeed a folk legend. Egyptian sources make not mention of the events described in the OT Exodus Narrative.
5) Jacob, in Hebrew ya0aqob means “he circumvents {artfully avoids defeat in battle}” Jacob sounds very much like a historical personality, in my opinion. Eden and the garden/paradise metaphorically represent The Sacred Central Mountain of God. The cult symbol of that Most High Place was probably Mt. Carmel.I look forward to your replyAll the best,Ger

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

bertot: We made it inspite of me. That is amazing.You wrote: It is my intention to discuss the words, the ideas, as well as the conclusions that can be drawn from the words and ideas conveyed in the Heb. & English biblical Scriptures. The conclusions that I share I do not claim to be the “only” or “right” conclusions. They are merely “my” conclusions. I am a “student” of the biblical Scriptures, NOT a “master” of the biblical Scriptures. I have not learned all there is to be learned, nor have I seen all that is to be seen. I am very open to discussing what others have learned, as well as the different perspectives that others may have regarding the biblical texts. I don’t expect anyone to “agree” with me. I want to talk, discuss, debate and learn. According to what I have learned, Proto-Canaanite, Canaanite/Phoenician, and Canaanite/Hebrew are the oldest “phonetic” writing systems on the planet. The English term “alphabet” is based on the Proto-Canaanite writing system’s first two consonant’s names, “>aleph beyth" that was adopted by the Greek’s “Alpha Beta". The Aramaic/Hebrew {biblical Heb.} “alphabet” is based on the Proto-Canaanite “alphabet.” The Heb. Tanakh {OT} is the focus of my study and research, and therefore I have focused my attention on the Hebrew writing system. Furthermore, Christianity establishes its very foundation on the Hebrew Tanakh {OT} that is why it is regarded as a Judeo-Christian belief system - Jesus being in the line of the Israelite/Jewish King David - and not regarded as a Greco-Roman belief system. My conclusions are neither “hard” nor “fast.” They are MY conclusions, not “the” conclusions. Let’s discuss them. You asked me questions, and I answered you. My conclusions are not just based on one terms “definition.” My conclusions (which can change as more information becomes available) are based on many terms, and many definitions that create a particular context of a particular biblical narrative. I do not expect anyone to merely “agree”. In fact, I learn more when they do not “agree.” So, please, “disagree.” Let’s talk, discuss, and debate the issues that my reply to your questions inspires in you (and others, I hope). We all have to have some conclusions as our personal foundations. So what? Let's discuss what is to be discussed and your "support" and my "support" for our different conclusions will be addressed. If I gave to you everything all at once you and I could not carry on a discussion. I would be merely talking to my self and probably agreeing with myself. I attempted to reply to your questions in a way that would inspire you to share in kind. So share. I want to hear from you. The idea that the Scriptures are “the word of GOD” can neither be validated nor invalidated. The oldest manuscripts we have regarding the Hebrew Tanakh {OT} are from the post-Exilic biblical literary age of the Jews. It is called the 2nd Biblical Period. Absolutely no pre-Exilic biblical manuscripts survive today. Whether we regard the Hebrew OT the word of God or not the fact remains that the Hebrew OT was scribed in New-Aramaic/Hebrew over two thousand years ago and did not include vowel points or vocalization marks. If we are to learn anything about the words used to compose the Hebrew OT we must study the literary language in which it was written. So, let’s study. Let’s study the Ancient Hebrew, Greek, and English Scriptures together; you from your background and perspective and me from my background and perspective.All the best,
Ger

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

bertot:I am open to any and all possibilities, but I may not necessarily agree with them.I am willing, however, to see "it" from another persepctive. However, I may disagree.I am not intending to "complain" or sound like I am "complaining." I am intending to disagree with that which I do not agree with, and I am trying to share with you the reasons for my disagreement.Let me show you a couple short examples,1) Gen. 21:33 And Abraham planted a grove {tararisk} in Beer-she-ba, and called there on the name of the LORD {yhwh} the everlasing God (KJV & {BHS).
Exodus 6:3 God says, "And I appeared unto Abraham ... by the name of God Almighty {>el shadiy}, but by my name JE-HO-VAH {yhwh} was I not known to them" (KJV & {BHS).
The Holy Bible and the Heb. OT clearly state that Abraham called upon the name of God, yhwh, and yet that text is contradicted when God tells Moses that Abraham did not know God by the name yhwh. Did the Holy Spirit make a mistake?2) Gen. 2:6 describes "and watered the whole surface of the ground."
Gen. 2:7 describes "formed of the dust of the ground."
If the whole surface of the ground is watered there would be no "dust." Furthermore, "dust of the ground" is not an earthly substance that lends itself to being "formed" as if by a potter. Potters use clay. Dust is not clay & clay is not dust.I conclude form example #1 that a mistake was made, and I conclude from example #2 that the Eden narrative excerpts denote a wisdom riddle and metaphors rather than an actual, historical, divine event.There are two conclusions that I hope we can discuss.All the best,
Ger

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

Hi am, Do you also conclude from example #2 that God is not omnipotent?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

bertot: The King James Version has misled you. The Hebrew of the KJV clause-"called there on the name of the LORD"-reads:

quote:

---

vayiqera>=and he called sham=there beshem=with the name yhwh=JE-HO-VAH

---

b= the preposition prefix: with the shem=name yhwh (BHS Masoretic Text).Gen. 21:33 And Abraham ... called there with the name YHWH, God everlasting.There is no mistaking, the problem still exists between Gen. 21:33 & Exodus 6:3.All the best,
Ger

ICANT: No, I do not.But, at this point in the discussion, God is not the issue.Regards,
Ger

This does not hold. Because to know God deeply as YHWH may not have been Abraham's experience yet except by vision, anticipation, and promise.(Some of us knew of this verse even when we knew what God had told Moses. We do check things like that too.)For example, I know Christ as the Coming One. He has not come yet in the sense of His Second Coming. Yet I believe His promise that He will come.So I "know" Him as the Coming One. Yet deeply and experiencially, not quite yet do I know Him in this way.So I think it is a matter of the depth of knowing. And it is a matter of knowing by way of vision and promise to come (an expectation) or knowing by way as fulfillment of promise. Big deal. There's wet dust and there's dry dust.You could even say that a hand full of mud was dust. I was slow to accept Genesis as history with built in symbolism. So I don't rush people to see it that way. It took me some time.Eventually though, I noticed that the flow of history was seamless.The objections that you outline I find to be minor ones.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

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

jawill: You write, I am not outlining "objections"; particularly not in Gen. 2 - 3. You are confusing me with someone who wants to undermine the Scriptures. On the contrary, I am studying them and learning from them. I hold all the ancinet biblical Scriptures in very high esteem.I do not hold all the translations and interpretations of those Sacred Scriptures in the same regard though. For example, You state: Have you ever looked up the word "dust" or Heb. 0apar? Human beings do not go out after a rain that has watered the entire surface of the ground and say, "Boy, is it dusty today." Ancient Hebrews, Israelites, and Jews have never talked that way any more than we do today. The Heb. term 'apar means "dry, loose ground, dust." The operative word here is dry. The English term "dust" when used in relation to the ground, means, dry, loose earth, dry dirt. Again, the operative word here is dry.In Heb. the word for "mud, or clay" is chomer, "as material of vessels, in simile, of God's fashioning man Isaiah 45:6, 64:7; Job 10:9; as material of human bodies Job 4:19."Notice that the word for dry loose dirt or ground is not used in the above examples.There is no such thing as "wet dust" or a handful of mud that dentoes a handful of "dust".With all due respect, your reply to this issue was rediculous. I know you know better, but perhaps you have to defend you belief so tenaciously that your common sense must be sacrificed in the process.I would prefer that we study the Scriptures together. That "dust" of the ground is dry is not my opinion, it is a natural fact.All the best,
Ger