Biblical Translation--Eden, 2

Besides not answering the questions that I posed in the above paragraph of mine I am not exacally sure where we are going with this unless it is an intro to the eden narrative. If howerever, whern you coget the chance maybe you could answer the above questions in a more direct manner.I dont know exacally where you are going with this but I will give it a shot. "The possibility of Sin is analytical to the propositon of Free Will"., as Dr Thomas B Wrren, professor of Philosophy and Christian Apologetics, in his book 'Have Atheist's proved ther is no God?'. Before the first thing CREATED, even Satan, the POSSIBLITY of sin existed, even in Gods existence by himself. You simply cannot have Free Will, without the possibility of sin.. Right and wrong, good and bad are not aconcept INTRODUCED anywhere, by anybody. they are a natural cooexisting property of Free Will anywhere. If God created anything with free will then it would not matter, what he introduced as a result of it.Since I do not know what you mean by TAINTED, I will have to wait until you reply more specifically. This portion here seems to have no logical connection to the above argument you made. I do know, but what does this question have to do with anything.When and if they do, do you consider them as reliable and dependable as coming from God or should we discard them because, 1. there is no way to know what the original says, or 2. because they inclulcate and incoorperate they supernatural and that which operates outside percieved and normal reality. Ofcouse I am trying to get you to judge the scriptures. If by judge you mean evaluate, that is what we are here to do. I said nothing about your method of interpretation. I was speaking of your words where, yyou said it was at times it was the word of God and then later it was only the words of men and your confused ideas about how insipration works. I said nothing about you interpretation method. This is what I meant about not answering a question directly or to the point. By TRANSENDED do you mean they did this themselves or that God through direct operation either inspired them or the words. Or do you mean that because God exists and he create the world and there are metaphors i the Bible that correspond to the natural world, this is how they or God inspired it. Or do you know what you mean at all? Again, besides not responding directly to my argument, it should be obvious that the answer you gave "Humans Do", is the the obvious answer. You answered your own question. if humans communicate with words, then would not the natural means for him to do this be, WORDS. Duh. If you implication is that he uses another method, please quit beating around the bush and tell us what this mysterious method is and quit hinting at it. this is all I have been asking you to do from the begining. Who said the concept of God only included the things mentioned above. But do not the scriptures include the concepts of God listed above? If your VAUGE implication here is that we should understand God some other way than through his WORD, then simply present it and explain it and quit crying about my method. Show why and how he does not use this method exclusively.I believe and understand Jesus' words you quoted lieterally without the necessity of interpreting them metaphorically. The question is, do you?The whole purpose of my line of questioning has been to see if you believe the scriptures are the WORDS of God or the words of men or a combination thereor, or exacally what. But since you cannot answer a question DIRECTLY it very hard to follow.Excuse my my following comments, but your approach seems to be nothing short of modern day Gnostic tactics. Asking us to avoid a simple approach and interpretation of a simple passage, for some deeper meaning that we are missing, because we are not using some science of interpretation, that allows us to understand things outside of thier usual contexts and meanings. We should use the Natural reality concept in conjuction with the metaphorical interpretation method, that will bring us to some higher understanding of Gods word. this is very close to the Gnostic tactics the early Church was confronted with.For example Autmnamn, What does the passage mean where Jesus says, "I am the way the truth and the Light, no man comes to the Father but by me". Does it mean what it say,or should I look for a deeper metaphorical meaning? Again, you very cleverly avoided answering my question, by asking another question that had nothing to do with what I asked. You are misapplying my words as well. My comparison of worthiness or value only has to do with its value in connection with spirituality, I was not speaking of it from a literary content. But ofcourse, if they are only the words of men, then they are relatively worthless in the spiritual realm. here is why. certainly everyone has thier view of what God wants or requires of us. Whos do I choose Autumnman, if they are all mens words.D Bertot

bertot, my friend:This topic pertains to "Biblical Translation -- Eden, 2".For some reason you seem to think that this particular subject you keep hammering on -- my personal view of your English Holy Bible -- has a bearing on "Biblical Translation." It does not. Any decision made under threat of death cannot be considered an act of "Free Will." It is a coerced decision.A child who has not yet attained the age of reason, who does not yet know good/right and evil/wrong, (Deut. 1:39), cannot make an informed decision or employ “Free Will.”According to Deut. 1:39 “Right and wrong, good and bad” are in fact “INTRODUCED,” subjective human mental constructs. Read Gen. 3:22. Try to figure it out on your own.

quote:

---

Think about it for one minute. God said that “the knowledge of good/right and evil/wrong” enables we human beings to be “like” only “one” particular portion of yhwh >elohiym. What do you think the “other portions” of yhwh >elohiym would be like?

---

You have got to be kidding! This is ridiculous!“We” should not discard any of the Hebrew OT or the Greek NT.But, What the heck, sure, perhaps you should “discard them.” For any reason, I don’t care.

quote:

---

AM wrote: Mr. bertot, you keep trying to make me “judge” the Scriptures. When I call something a “poor” translation, I am stating a fact. The expositor method of interpretive translation is an “interpretive”, (as opposed to, a literal-word for word-interpres), translation. That is not a judgment; that is a fact. It is like saying, “dust” is “dust” and “clay” is “clay”; they are not the same. Potters do not use “dust” to “form” a pot.

---

I have “evaluated” “the scriptures.” In my humble opinion the English Holy Bible (in all of its various “Versions”) is an expositor rendition of the source texts. That is to say, the English Holy Bible is not an accurate translation of the ancient manuscripts that it claims to represent.Having said that, however, in my opinion neither should the English Holy Bible be discarded, nor should any of the source texts be discarded. Whether or not all or part of any of The Scriptures under consideration were or were not “inspired by God” has no bearing on the objective worth of the above-mentioned Scriptures. That is my opinion.It is your opinion that if the above-mentioned Scriptures were not “inspired by God” they are all worthless and should be discarded. That is your right.All the best,
Ger

I dont know how you treat you friends, but if this is an example in this post, please do not refer to me as friend.Calm down Autumnman, we will get to where you want to be in this thread, I am just trying to narrow down, exacally what it is that you believe about inspiration of the scriptures (notice I did not say Holy English Bible) but anything you consider as the the most reliable source that has come down to us.Since you are so adept at avoiding obvious and simple questions, like the only ONE I have now been discussing in my last posts, I will do it slowly for you. After this first word consider every word after it spoken in the same manner.Auuuuutuuummmmnmaaannn, are there annnnnny scriptures in exissstence that you woooooould conssssider as directly inspired by God, not by Gods simple existence and giving man creative powers, but by God intervening in the natural order of things, to assist the writers of those scriptures, with words or ideas. Or that he would choose the words for the writes to compose the texts. Or is there some other mystical way that I have not described Or are they strickly the works of men, with absolutley no assistance from God in the composition of them. FROM YOU PERSPECTIVE, not what you are privy to, are they an inspired item from God in one way or another. Now this is a direct question that I think even you with your skill of evasion cannot miss. I am kidding about how it is presented but you get the point.Also, you are not required or under obligation to answer this question, but one would wonder why you are avoiding doing this with such great force. If not Yes or No, then a simple 'I dont know', will suffice. You are the only one talking about thier objective worth outside of inspiration. They can be the most wonderful composition ever put on paper along with Shakespear, but what does that have to do with the philisophical and spiritual question about thier connection with God.Watch this illustration AM, When discussing any text of the scriptures one natually implies the direct or indirect influence of God in the process. If I am discussing the location of Eden, from ANY of the manuscripts or texts or any other item in the scriptures it will eventually get back to the question of God or Gods influence in the process, in some direct or indirect way. It is simply ludicrous to think you can discuss Biblical issues, without this happening. If Eden was mythological or not, if Adam or Eve, were real or not, it will bring you back to the question of Gods direct or indirect influence.Another illustration will suffice. In our discussion about Gen and Ex, you wanted to look at the TEXTS themselves (Interpres method) and draw cold hard conclusions based on only on those texts. And I believe your purpose was to demonstrate that this could not have been a product of the Holy Spirit because there was a contradiction in your view. However, automatically myself, Jaywill and Iano involked the supernatural and possibile explanations, that involved, intervention and providence of God. The implication here is, that it is nearly immposible to discuss any portion of the scriptures, (Hebrew or Greek translations) without involving the idea of inspiration or ones views about how God would involve himself. This is why I am HAMMERING, as you call it to see what your perspective is on it. For, if you only see them as the words of men, then my understanding of what you present in any context will be greatly altered as to how I will respond. Do you see the point now.? It most certainly does, if you are discussing it with someone who believes Inspiration and the scritures are connected. certainly you have a view on way or another. Even, if your view is 'I dont know', it leaves room for providence and intervention and inspiration, correct? Im sure you have heared the line. "Your money or your life". "Im thinking about it". What part of Free will in that situation is not a real actual thing, involved in the thinking or decision making process. No other process or item has to exist for Free Will to exist outright. Its only a coerced decision if there were no other options available. Coerced, is being thrown into showers that are actually gas chambers, with no options on thier part. Get it Autumnman? .
I will get to the rest of this in the morningD Bertot.

I believe that the Bible is the word of God; the divine oracles communicating revelation to man of many things which man could not find out unless God had spoken to us through the prophets and in the 66 books of the Bible.Upon this basis I have some comments about AM's above paragraph. Many Christians refer to this as the Fall of Man. The word fall is not in the text. The closest thing to it is recorded in the verses immediately following the expulsion of Adam and his wife Eve from the garden in Eden. That is that the countenance of Cain fell.As far as I know no interpreter has ever made a connection between the falling of Cain's countenance and the fall of man. I do so here because I have been musing on the account.Cain's expression became discouraged, angry, saddened, down cast. His offering in worship was not regarded by God whereas the offering of Abel his brother, was. Here is what Genesis says in my Recovery Version: Man has gained something called the knowledge of good and evil. Though Cain has the knowledge of good and evil he is lacking in the life power to overcome the evil that he knows. He is also weak to perform the good that he knows.It seems that Man has received a raw deal. He has gained a knowledge but he has been hoodwinked in the process. Though he has the knowledge of good and evil, the case of Cain and Abel show that having the knowledge alone is not sufficient. Man is weak to perform the good. Man is weak to resist the evil. This exhortation reveals that Cain should have some past experience with this struggle. If he does well his countenance will be lifted up. This must not have been the first time that descendents of Adam and Eve struggled with temptation to do "not well" as opposed to doing well. That is this was not the first time they had to choose between doing good or evil.This instance is singled out because it resulted in two things:1.) The invention of the first man made religion, the religion of Cain.2.) The first murder of man by man.I will not develop here the either of these points. But rather I would point out that though Cain had knowledge he lacked power - the power of life, to overcome the evil and to do the good. Instead of ruling over the sin, the sin ruled over him.Remember now that a barrier of the glorious cherubim with the flaming sword guarded the way to the tree of life (Gen. 3:24). And the New Testament tells us that man was alienated from the life of God. Fallen mankind is described as not only estranged from God's presence or from knowing God. Man in his state of vanity and falleness is alienated from the very life of God. The tree of life therefore must represent the life of God. And to partake of it must mean that the life of God is dispensed into the life of man. Therefore God's original purpose in creating man was that man was a vessel of created life designed to contain the uncreated and divine life of God Himself. God would live in man. Man would live God. That is not just worship God, obey God, know God, love God, BUT LIVE GOD.In the instance of Cain we see man alienated from the life of God. However there something evil and wicked which is very close to man and even IN man. It is something called SIN. It is spoken of as a personifide thing lurking and crouching at the door of Cain's heart, looking to seize the opportunity to rule over Cain: Man is alienated from the life of God. He is forbidden to partake of the tree of life. Instead man is infested with sin. Sin as a evil personified parasite is crouching at the door of the inward heart of man seeking any opportunity to bring man under his power to rule over him.Cain's knowledge of good and evil is not able to cause him to over come the crouching, opportunistic sin. It seems that another evil life and not the life of God has been injected into man. Though man struggle against it with the better judgment of his conscience, he cannot overcome it. The result is the jealous rage that causes one man to murder another. Of course God knew and Cain knew where Abel was. He was dead, murdered. God asks to give Cain a chance to allow his conscience to inform him of his need to confess and repent of his sin. It is similar to God asking Adam after he sinned "Where are you?".Cain now retorts in a fashion that shows that he is suppressing his human conscience. Since he cannot do good he desparately seeks to shut up the voice within him that informs him of good. He is not responsible for his brother, he retorts. In fact he can kill his brother out of anger. It does not matter.When the sinner cannot live with himself he will seek to silence his conscience. He will seek to shut it up, to shut it down and silence its conviction."I cannot escape this evil that I loath. I cannot do the good that I know I should do. I cannot live with myself in this contradiction. So I hold down and shut up the voice of my conscience. It is not there."This is one way man deals with the delimma of the convicting of his conscience. The other way is that he will seek to bribe his conscience. He will do something else good instead of the thing in which he has sinned. Perhaps if I do something else which is good I can shut the voice of my conscience up. But the conscience takes no bribes. It knows what it knows what it knows.The crouching sin rushed in and ruled over Cain. In Romans the Apostle Paul discribes sin in these terms also. Sin deceives. Sin seeks opportunity. Sin kills. Sin rebels on general principle. Here is a portion of Paul's diagnosis of man with his indwelling sin nature: The law commandment of God caused sin to "seize the opportunity" to work coveting in Paul's heart. Isn't this like God saying that "sin is crouching at the door" in Genesis 4:7Man was meant to live God out from within him via the tree of life. But taking in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil a personified evil sin has infested man's being. Sin woke up and brought the man into a dying, a weakness, and a death of sorts. Paul was alive until the commandment roused sin up in him. Sin rebels, Sin crouches. Sin seeks opportunity. Man was alienated from the life of God but Satanified by the evil nature of sin. Sin kills like a murderer. Sin deceives like a liar. There is a force indwelling man that deceives, crouches, seeks opportunity to overpower man and rule man. The knowledge of good and evil alone does not provide the power to live godly and righteously as man was created to do. Sin not only crouches and seeks opportunity. Sin causes the man to do that which he hates to do. Cain did not want to give in to anger to the extent that he would kill his brother Abel. But he was driven by the force of the indwelling sin. It is the same for all fallen people today. All are guilty of sinning. All have failed to do what they delight in and have committed what they hate to have done.If this is not the case in every action it is the case in many many actions. That is enough to give us a real record of real guilt before the holy and righteous God. we should notice that Paul speaks of the indwelling sin as being in his members. We should see that he speaks of the body of this death. And we should see that this sin acts as a law in his members. It wars against the good in his mind. Paul says that in him, that is in his flesh, DWELLS no good thing.This does not mean that his body is not created good. It means that something has entered into man's fallen body and transmuted it, corrupting it. I believe that this entered into man's body from his taking in the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.The tree was a bad deal. The tree was a deceptive deal. It looked good for food and seemed desireable to make one wise. In fact it brought man under the authority of an evil force that is personified. This lives in man and crouches at man's heart to perform the evil that man hates in his conscience.I have not answered all of the question of AM. It is hard to do so in one post. This is a start to address some of the issues of results of man's being corrupted by the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.The reverse of the effect of the tree of life came about. Instead of man being united with God in a harmonious and sweet blending, man is infested with the Satanic spirit. Something which we do not fully understand became a foreign element as a evil parasite attached to man through his fallen transmuted flesh.God wants to enliven man from the inside out. Satan seeks to destroy man from the outside in. It is the divine life of the Person God which seeks to mingle with man. It is the enemy of God driving man to be independent from God yet unknowingly enslaved to sin.Man has the knowledge of good and evil. Man does not have the power of life to fully perform the good or resist the evil.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

bertot: I apologize that my frustration was expressed in a way that hurt your feeling. I will try very hard to not allow that to happen again.

quote:

---

AM writes bertot, my friend:This topic pertains to "Biblical Translation -- Eden, 2". For some reason you seem to think that this particular subject you keep hammering on -- my personal view of your English Holy Bible -- has a bearing on "Biblical Translation." It does not.

---

You are allowed to be frustrating, as a friend. I am allowed to be frustrated, as a friend. Isn’t that the way friendship works? I do not know. I have no idea.I have been reading the book “The Dead Sea Scriptures”, by Theodor H. Gaster. On Page #8, rendering from the Qumran Book of Hymns, Gaster writes:

quote:

---

But even if the Torah be correctly expounded by prophet and teacher, men, it is held, can and will receive it only if they be correctly attuned. And that attunement come”if we may mix the metaphor”through inner “enlightenment”. The community considers itself, therefore, not only the remnant of Israel but also the specially “enlightened”. Over and over again the Book of Hymns thanks are rendered to God for “illumining the face” of his servant or for shining His light in His servant’s heart. The acquisition of that light, however, is not attributed to any sudden, spontaneous act of grace. Rather is it the result of man’s own voluntary exercise of that power of discernment which God placed in every creature at the moment of its creation. All things, it is affirmed”even the sun and moon and stars”have been endowed by God with sensate knowledge, though the choice of using it or ignoring it has been left, in the case of man, to his individual will. If he heeds the gift, he achieves harmony with the eternal cosmic scheme and breaks the trammels of his mortality. Automatically, he is embraced in the communion of eternal thing. (Pg. 7)

---

quote:

---

AM wrote: Whether or not all or part of any of The Scriptures under consideration were or were not “inspired by God” has no bearing on the objective worth of the above-mentioned Scriptures. That is my opinion.

---

I hope that the above quote from Theodor Gaster helps you become a little clearer regarding my perspective of the Scriptures. Man’s attunement and inner enlightenment plays a much larger role in man’s ability to voluntarily exercise his God given power of discernment and sensate {i.e. perceived by the senses} knowledge. This would be regarded as God’s “indirect influence”, as opposed to a “sudden, and spontaneous act of grace.” I must again side with the Qumran Hebrew community and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Even though we are mere human beings, and for this reason we are prone to making errors, although those human errors tend to discount the perfect presence of a Holy Spirit, those human errors in no way diminish an individual’s inner enlightenment, ability to exercise his God given power of discernment or his God given sensate knowledge. We cannot be human and not be indirectly influenced by God.
For some reason you seem to think that this particular subject you keep hammering on -- my personal view of your English Holy Bible -- has a bearing on "Biblical Translation." It does not. We cannot be human and not be indirectly influenced by God. Read above.

quote:

---

Autumnman writes, Any decision made under threat of death cannot be considered an act of "Free Will." It is a coerced decision.

---

I don’t think “you” get it. In order for your example to have any meaning at all, both parties must have established constructs regarding the situation you are depicting. If one has been taught that “money” is a renewal resource, but “life” is not, then the decision to hand over one’s money is a coerced decision. Free Will can only be exercised within the framework of a well-informed mind that is capable of weighing all of one’s options, and outside the framework of threats and coercion.I presently have a well-informed mind regarding the Command that God issued to “Adam” in Gen. 2:16 & 17. Unlike “Adam” I am now capable of making an informed decision. I know what God is ordering me to do and what not to do, and even without the warning of “death” I would not disobey God’s command. “Adam” on the other hand, did not have those options.

quote:

---

AM wrote: A child who has not yet attained the age of reason, who does not yet know good/right and evil/wrong, (Deut. 1:39), cannot make an informed decision or employ “Free Will.”According to Deut. 1:39 “Right and wrong, good and bad” are in fact “INTRODUCED,” subjective human mental constructs.

---

. I look forward to your continued response.All the best,
Ger

jaywill:I agree with so much of what you are saying. However, I find in certain areas of your discertation where things you have said do not add up in my mind. I will do my best to address some of those statements which did not ring clear for me as time allows today.What you said was conveyed quite beautifully, and, as I said above, I tend to agree with a lot of it.All the best,
Ger

From where does Gaster get the idea that this power is "God given"?How does Gaster know that there is a God to give anything and that this God has endowed man with "God given" power of discernment?

Okay. The New Testament tells us to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good.But I think I will continue a bit more. And I tend also to repeat things. Because of my own personal experience I found out that some repetition (Deuteronomy) is sometimes necessary in the revelation of God. We do not get many important things with just one speaking.So for that sake of some who are reading along, you may find me repeating some matters.Take you time to respond with those areas with which you find difficulties.Also, I may have made mistakes. We know in part and we prophesy in part (1 Cor. 13:12). I am only trying to do my best as a teacher of the Bible.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

jaywill: Theodor Gaster as well as Hershel Shanks are two of the many Hebrew scholars who are translating the DEAD SEA SCROLLS. Professor Gaster is quoting and expounding on the Qumran Text called Book of Hymns. In this Qumran Text - one of THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS - the Qumran Jewish sect describes how they understood that the TORAH must be correctly interpreted.Some scholars refer to the Qumran Jewish sect as the Essenes.Does that help?All the best,
Ger

jaywill:qsI believe that the Bible is the word of God; the divine oracles communicating revelation to man of many things which man could not find out unless God had spoken to us through the prophets and in the 66 books of the Bible.[/qs]Fair enough.

quote:

---

AM wrote: According to the Eden Narrative human beings attained “the knowledge of good/right and evil/wrong”. Everything changed after that point in the narrative. The Deity described in the Eden Narrative says, “Behold, the human species has become as one from a portion of us, in regard to knowing good/right and evil/wrong” (Gen. 3:22). The humans are then sent out of the garden in Eden and kept away from the “tree of the life” so that they could not partake from it. This is where mankind begins its journey of mortal existence on planet earth. Right?Not only is humankind outside the garden and Eden, but along with them has come “the knowledge of good/right and evil/wrong”. This forbidden knowledge is passed along from one generation to another. Right? Yet, the knowledge of good/right and evil/wrong is the very knowledge that God’s first command of prohibition pertained to. Right? Would this not suggest in the strongest of terms that all the knowledge human beings have been passing along from one to another, from one generation to another is quite likely to have been tainted by the forbidden “knowledge of good/right and evil/wrong?Think about it for one minute. God said that “the knowledge of good/right and evil/wrong” enables we human beings to be “like” only “one” particular portion of yhwh >elohiym. What do you think the “other portions” of yhwh >elohiym would be like?

---

I applaud your musing.

quote:

---

And Jehovah had regard for Abel and for his offering. But for Cain and his offering He had no regard. And Cain became very angry, and his countenance fell.And Jehovah said to Cain, Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen?If you do well, will not [your countenance] be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and his desire is for you, but you must rule over him. (Gen. 4:4b-7)

---

If we are attempting to read and comprehend Gen. Chapter 4 as a literal account describing how human beings interact with each other and with God, then the Narrative must be examined from a human perspective.According to the first 11 verses of Gen. Chapter 4, there are only four human beings existing on the entire planet earth at this time”“Adam”, “Eve”, “Cain”, and “Abel”. According to Deut. 1:39, the knowledge of good/right and evil/wrong is not passed along from one generation to the next, like a genetic abnormality or like a disease. Deut. 1:39 states, “Your little ones ... and your children, who today do not know good/right and evil/wrong.” The little ones and children must learn what is good/right and evil/wrong in order form them to “know good/right and evil/wrong.” This strongly suggests that “Cain’s” and “Abel’s” parents must have taught them “the knowledge of good/right and evil/wrong.” Let’s not forget that Cain & Abel’s parents were the two individuals that caused all the problems in the first place; right? That kind of puts Cain and Abel at a considerable disadvantage; right?Let’s take a quick look at the Hebrew names bestowed upon these first two human offspring: Cain was the first born; in Hebrew his name is qayin=to make artificially; the spear, as weapon for hunting and war - Abel was the second born; in Hebrew his name is habel=to act emptily, become vain; vanity, empty breath, unsubstantial, worthless.Cain is described as being a farmer, and Abel is described as being a herdsman. The LORD had regard for Abel’s offering, but He had no regard for Cain’s offering. So, it appears as though the LORD is playing favorites, and in doing so is goading Cain/the spear into going to war with his vain, worthless brother, Abel.Then the LORD said to The Spear/Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well will you not be accepted? (Stating outright that Cain/The Spear was not accepted) And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.”Cain it “The Spear”, he is not a farmer; he is a hunter and a warrior. That is why God did not give any regard to Cain’s “fruit of the ground offering.” But, because of the worthless vanity of his brother, instead of becoming the hunter he was - and offering God the bounty of his hunt, The Spear/Cain became a warrior and killed his worthless vain brother.Note that God did not put Cain to death for his actions. Instead Cain and his “wife” {wherever she came from} went away from the presence of the LORD and settled in the land of Nod=wandering & grief qidemath=in front of Eden. Man must be taught how to employ the subjective “knowledge of good/right and evil/wrong”. What is good and right for one man under certain circumstances; is just the opposite for that same man under different circumstances. This particular lesson is reiterated through out the Hebrew OT. If you need examples, I can present a number of them.I will post this at this point, and await your reply.All the best,
Ger

Autumnman writesContinuing where I was on free will. Free Will as I have earlier pointed out exists independend of of any characteristic to accompany it. It even exists independent of mans mind. Free Will existed before the first thing was ever created, in Gods existence itself.Further, when we reverse the example you gave about the threat of death and make the murderer the subject we still must conclude that he is making a decision with full knowlegde of his actions and the consequences of his actions as well. Now this is not always the case but WE KNOW that such a situation CAN exist, indicating that free will can exist exclusivley independent of any example or idea leveled against it. This is one or the reasons we have made as human beings the distinction between, 'involutary manslughter and premeditated murder. You example and illustration does not stand AM.I have already indicated o you that I believe children are SAFE not SAVE or the requirment of being saved. "Except you become as one of these, you shall in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven"Now I know your implication is that God introduced sin to Adam and Eve. However, you are failing to see how and what the properties of existence and free will are. Man simply becomes AWARE of these entities when he reaches the age of accountability, they are not introduced by anyone. Good and evil or the possibility of them along with free will existed before any prohibition was ever issued. The commandment by God to not eat of the tree or do or not do anything simply brought thier already AWARE knowledge into deeper focus. Example, did Eve know before she ate of it that is was right or wrong, ofcourse she did. Not because God told her not to do it, look deeper, but because the knowledge of knowing right and wrong was there before the command was issued. Otherwise, how could God give them a command in the first place,if they did not ALREADY have the mental capacity and atleast some understanding (free will) of obeying or disobeying. You simply do not understand the properies of existence and free will. See how it works AM. On the other hand, you have not demonstrated to any real degree why we should not believe or accept the fact that we do not have the embodiment or the essence of that which was origianaaly conveyed by the original writers, as all the evidence and historical information would indicte we do, quotes from writers that agree with your position, not withstanding.this is a completion of the post under consideration, I will now start on your latest ones.D Bertot

Autumnman writes --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your ANSWER in relationship to insipration of the scriptures, it makes the following discussion much mor effective.Please forgive the following statement and do not 'hang up' on me. The above quote is nothing short of Gnosticism, while it asks us to empower our gift of free will and decernment it appears to be encourging us to remove ourselves from the PLAIN and SIMPLE teaching of Gods word, in favor of the COMIC SCHEME which is never explained or clarified, with any degree of accuracy. it almost leaves man to his own devices to determine what he choose to be Gods word or not.In other words we cannot be CORRECTLY ATTUNED, simply bby understanding Gods simple commands, edicts or explanations of things,we must mix the metaphor with the enter enlightenment. if however, he means by this that we just understand Gods word for it siple understanding and explanation, then, OK. But I somehow dont think this is his implication.I am not comparing you or him to Satan, bu this is the same method, that he employed in the Garden, when he tried to subvert the mind of Eve from the PLAIN SIMPLE, and UNDERSTANDABLE edict from God. he said, "is that really what God said Eve." In other words can we really only understand Gods words by simply an examination, oh no Mr. Bertot we need much more than our Free Will and poweres of decenment, we need a mystical ineer enlightenment. I dont think so.the gift that your writer speaks of above is free will and decernment, but it will not be fine tuned by any COSMIC scheme, that cannot be defined and explained. It can only be fined tuned by a simple and accurate knowledge of Gods wishes in his word. Thank you, it does help me, however, I was aware of what you positon was before you quoted him. I simply have been trying to get you to explain what you meant by COSMIC SCHEME all along and how we could identify or explain and use this process. Notice how you make a clear distinction between this inner enlightenment and mans God given power of free will. But you fellas never explain to any degree of accuracy how this 'inner enlightenment' and cosmic scheme work or apply. The inner enlightenment and free will are the same thing.. if they are not then please demonstrate how we are to define, use and interpret this inner enlightenment. This is why I claasify it as nothing more than modern day Gnosticism. It asks us to go beyond what is simply written by God, for some mystical and really unidentifiable meaning, using a method that is both unrealistic and nonidentifiable. Please explain.D Bertot

Man must be taught how to employ the subjective “knowledge of good/right and evil/wrong”. What is good and right for one man under certain circumstances; is just the opposite for that same man under different circumstances. This particular lesson is reiterated through out the Hebrew OT. If you need examples, I can present a number of them.I could not agree with you more AM, but your Cosmic scheme and inner enlightnment, as distinquished from free Will will not get a Man there. The way they are taufht is by Gods words. What inner light and decernment and Cosmic scheme did Jesus appeal to in the desert in his confrontation with Satan. Let me see, I believe it was "thus saith the Lord", or "it is written", that silly Jesus was not aware of the Cosmic scheme or inner enlightenmnet.D Bertot

bertot: If I am reading you correctly, you are implying that this ethereal “Free Will” exists independent of the human mind? “Will” is defined as, “the power of control the mind has over its own actions; the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the freedom of the will. There are a number of other English definitions, but none of them fit your “Ethereal Free Will” construct. So, you make the leap from “children who do not yet know good/right from evil/wrong” to the adult legal terms “premeditated murder and involuntary manslaughter”. That is quite a leap. It is a very rare event that an adult who is in full control of his power of reason, simply decides to go out and kill someone just because he happens to want to or happens to have a gun. Most people in their “right minds” would rather talk to one another than to try to kill one another. Killing is a dirty, messy, painful business even when it is sanctioned by a religious creed or government decree. The human animal would much rather sit down and share a cup of coffee, than attempt to beat one another to death. That happens to be a fact, a reality, a truth. We are in accord. The above assertion does not fit the context of the Hebrew Eden Narrative.The commandment by God to not eat of the tree or do or not do anything simply brought thier already AWARE knowledge into deeper focus. Example, did Eve know before she ate of it that is was right or wrong, ofcourse she did. Not because God told her not to do it, look deeper, but because the knowledge of knowing right and wrong was there before the command was issued.“The woman” {a.k.a. Eve} did not exist at the time God issued His command {which begins with Gen. 2:16), and “the serpent” did not exist at the time God issued His command {which begins with Gen. 2:16). That is the context of the Eden Narrative. The tree of the knowledge of good/right and evil/wrong by definition possessed the knowledge of good/right and evil/wrong at the time God issued His two-fold command in Gen. 2:16 & 17. “The human archetype” {a.k.a. Adam} therefore was not in possession of the knowledge of good/right and evil/wrong at the time God issued His two-fold command. That is the context of the Hebrew Eden Narrative. The Hebrew Eden Narrative makes absolutely no direct or indirect reference to any notion of there being an “ethereal free will” being associated with anyone or anything throughout the entire Hebrew Eden narrative.Consequently, you are making stuff up to try and find some kind of support for your unjustifiable interpretation of the English interpretive rendition of the Hebrew Eden Narrative. I know how it works. But, apparently you do not. God did not “give them” a “command”. God issued His command upon ha>adam. No one else was in existence at the time God begins issuing His command in Gen. 2:16 and concludes His command in Gen. 2:17. You are absolutely correct in realizing that “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” was in sole possession of the knowledge that would enable ha>adam=“the human archetype” to comprehend the two commands which God was issuing. That is a fantastic insight. Therefore ha>adam= “the human archetype” cannot be accused of “deliberately” or “willfully” disobeying God’s two-fold command. Gen. 3:2 & 3 illustrates how poorly ha>adam= “the human archetype” understood God’s two-fold command when the author of the Hebrew Text has “the woman” say, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, but God said, ”you shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you will naturally die’.” Compare what “the woman” says, to the actual two-fold command issued by God in Gen. 2:16 & 17. Somebody was very confused.Check it out.

quote:

---

AM wrote: I have “evaluated” “the scriptures.” In my humble opinion the English Holy Bible (in all of its various “Versions”) is an expositor rendition of the source texts. That is to say, the English Holy Bible is not an accurate translation of the ancient manuscripts that it claims to represent. Having said that, however, in my opinion neither should the English Holy Bible be discarded, nor should any of the source texts be discarded. Whether or not all or part of any of The Scriptures under consideration were or were not “inspired by God” has no bearing on the objective worth of the above-mentioned Scriptures. That is my opinion.It is your opinion that if the above-mentioned Scriptures were not “inspired by God” they are all worthless and should be discarded. That is your right.

---

I’m not done demonstrating yet, that's all.All the best,
Ger

According to the first 11 verses of Gen. Chapter 4, there are only four human beings existing on the entire planet earth at this time”“Adam”, “Eve”, “Cain”, and “Abel”. According to Deut. 1:39, the knowledge of good/right and evil/wrong is not passed along from one generation to the next, like a genetic abnormality or like a disease. Deut. 1:39 states, “Your little ones ... and your children, who today do not know good/right and evil/wrong.” The little ones and children must learn what is good/right and evil/wrong in order form them to “know good/right and evil/wrong.” This strongly suggests that “Cain’s” and “Abel’s” parents must have taught them “the knowledge of good/right and evil/wrong.” Let’s not forget that Cain & Abel’s parents were the two individuals that caused all the problems in the first place; right? That kind of puts Cain and Abel at a considerable disadvantage; right?No this strongly suggest that the understanding of right and wrong were in man before any command was issued. To understand a command you need the ablity to understand it. Adam and Eve may have passed along Gods wishes but this distintivleydifferent from thier ablity understand the difference between right and wrong.D Bertot