Biblical Translation--Eden, 2

Hi am, What makes you think the planet earth is the same today as it was in the beginning which was so long ago you can not even come up with a number big enough to say how old it is.Genesis tells us that all the land was in one place at a time in the past. It also tells us the land mass was divided in the past.As far as your mangling of Gods Word, with your additions, I would like to remind you that you will stand before God and give an account one day. Even if you do not believe in God.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."

icantPlease keep your religious threats to yourself. If you have something to offer regarding Biblical Translation-Eden, then offer it. If you don't then your fanatic ramblings will not be tolerated.Thanks

quote:

---

Hebrew nouns are derived from verbs.

---

Correct. The universe itself was ushered in by a verb, which signifies an action. All names can be traced to their root action, as in blacksmith signifying a source of a smith worker. Adam is thus derived from the action of rising a life form from the earth. But the breath of life is not of the earth.

quote:

---

I don't think it negated OT law. I think it made a more penetrating point than OT law. It hightened the morality of OT law.

---

It acting as a focusing of the law's actioning, certainly makes it a better view. With regard negating the law - this cannot be done by Jesus or anyone else - save for the one who gave the law. In fact, despite some such views with christians - this has never been successful: the law stands today with no deminishing.I recently read an article by an Islamic scholar, asserting that the quran has been mis-interpreted *by muslims* of recent, and requires a reappraisal [I can post this if required]. This may also be the applicable case with the Gospels. Both thoese scriptures do not contain the mandated law NOT TO ADD OR SUBTRACT, as does the OT. Which is quite ironic and telling.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

I find the hebrew writings and language a total mystery, and none of the links on the webs and encyclopedeas gives any resolvement. This language appears to have come suddenly and in an already advanced state, with no resemblance of its spacetime for a 1000 years before or after. I even suspect that the sumerian/phonecian, deemed the prototype of the hebrew, is actually the other way around. What I *think* occured, was that there was an original language which was not resultant from the evolutionary process [there are no such imprints], but was somehow bestowed upon humanity, and Hebrew is closest to this language - perhaps due to the ever wondering hebrew/jews syndrome, which lacked the privilege of refineing this language.For certain, hebrew today is like a crystal ball how all languages were spoken in ancient times - the gutheral phonations are still in tact, which has been discarded from other language by refinement. Consider that 'night' is spelled that way because it was pronounced in that gutheral way merely a few centuries back. This gives the Hebrew a big credence of its authenticity.My bewilderment is, why the other nations - far mightier and older than the Hebrews - never left us alphabetical, historical books as did the Hebrew? When we consider that those mighty nations survived a 1000 years after the emergence of the Hebrew [eg. Phoenecia; Babylon], and these were not in dispersion and exile - there is an inference the prevailing views of language origins and which is the oldest - has some holes in it and cannot be vindicated in reality.The Hebrew writings possess some big time shockers, and appears authentically alligned with the space-times it's texts speak of. Consider that the first two words in the 10 Cs are not in Hebrew but ancient egyptian ['Ano chi'/ 'I Am']; this is directed at the Pharoah, who regarded himself as divine and spoke no Hebrew. The latter factor again disproving which language is the older: Egypt was closely associated with Canaan and Sumeria for a 1000 years before Hebrew - how then could it not speak Hebrew - unless the Hebrew was older? All the 1000s of names, spread of the generations of Adam, Noah, Abraham , Ishmael, etc - have been deemed 100% authentic: the foremost factor used by archeologists in determing ages is NAMES. A 4000 year name never occurs 3500 ago. I find it bewildering a document so old could recall all these names, with dob and dod's, places and events - and be authentic. Its a mystery - any enlightenment here is welcome.

IamJoseph: How do you figure that nishmath chayiym is not of this earth?All the brute animals breath "nishmath-rucha chayiym" = breath-spirit of life Gen. 7:22.Regards,
Ger

quote:

---

What makes you think the planet earth is the same today as it was in the beginning which was so long ago you can not even come up with a number big enough to say how old it is.

---

This is an excellent point. It is nowhere more applicable than in the Noah story: here, the whole world becomes limited to the then known old world - Tasmania and New Orleans never existed at this time, namely 5,500 years ago. The texts also declare in its preamble it refers to NOAH AND HIS HOUSEHOLD - thus the animals also are limited to his possessions, and thus no tigers or elephants are mentioned here. Consider that if we describe an event today - would we be rendered false if in 5,500 years the human habitation extended to and included the Moon, Mars and Jupiter? If anything, this factor renders the Noah story more authentic.Perhaps we will discover one day, the rivers nominated in Genesis will be evidenced by archeology. A text's validity must be judged by its vindicated factors, which are greatly manifest in Genesis; very little is not vindicated.There is a certain mystery here: Moses is describing an event which occured some 2000 years previously - and giving an account with attaching names, nations, terrains, cultures, diets, animals and traditions - with an exacting not possible by recall or by copying from other writings - yet it is authentic, and its equavelence is not seen any place else. No writings from ancient Egypt or Sumeria gives such specific, historical accounts. There is an awesome import here, which threatens all our knowns of what is reasonable here.

quote:

---

How do you figure that nishmath chayiym is not of this earth?

---

According to the OT sages and oral law, humans possess a factor in their souls which no other life form possess, and this refers to speech - a Gdlike attribute, which was bestowed directly from the Creator - after humans were already formed but were still inactive and immobile - or at least - not as the modern humans we see now, namely with speech. Thus it says, AND MAN BECAME A *LIVING* SOUL.This is a wholly logical and scientific premise. The human was fully formed but not alive - a triggering activated the formed. This is also seen in all other life - which was not activated till a mist arose and the rains came. the analogy is: THE DINNER TABLE IS READY FOR THE GUESTS. If it was not this way - science would not exist - we would have no way of observing a process at work.The oral law, derived from Moses, states this:

quote:

---

'Let us make man.' God may be said to address the spiritual and the material elements thus: 'Till now all creatures have been of matter only; now I will create a being who shall consist of both matter and spirit.'--Gen. Rabba 8.

---

The breadth is also acknowledged in any Eastern religions and philosophies as the ultimate factor.

IamJoseph That is not what "it" says, "it" being the Hebrew Tanakh {OT).Gen 2:7 concludes nepesh chayah=breathing animal.Gen. 2:19 concludes nepesh chayah=breathing animal.Gerp.s. I'm still not getting notificaton of your posts. Sorry if I'm a little late getting back to you.

The standing of the law renders you and I guilty and in deep trouble. We have both broken the law and therefore both need justification before a absolutely righteous and holy God who does not play favorites and is no respector of persons.So if you argue for the firm standing of the law of God then you better consider how you will be saved. That is because even if you were from this day be perfect in every aspect of obeying the law (which is not likely) you still would not be able to erase your trangressions of the law commited by you up to this day.The law of which you desire to boast will condemn you before God in the end. So you would be advized well to read more carefully the Gospel of Christ and the justification within the realm of the only Person who is not condemned by the law and who alone fulfill its requirements before His Father."Christ is the end of the law to everyone who believes ..." You can discuss what a Islamic scholar said with a Moslem. I have no comment about what an Islamic scholar said about this in relation to his Quran.You often try hard to lump Islam and the Christian gospel together to "kill two birds with one stone." Debate you complaints with Islam with someone of the Islamic faith.Now concerning the Christian gospel, Jesus DID say that He one iota or one serif would not pass from the law until all is accomplished. This proves false your above statement that - What is more telling then this innaccurate charge is the direct words of Jesus; You can determine whether this reveals Jesus encouraging or discouraging the addition or substraction to the law.Do you really read the New Testament ?I don't have time this morning to discuss this text the way I would like to. There is more I would like to write this morning. But this at least I believe negates your false charge the the New Testament does not warn against the substraction or addition to the law of Moses.And again I am not defending Islam here but the Gospel of Christ. You can take up your complaint with Islam with a Moslem.

IamJoseph, bertot, whoever: So what you are saying is that the "Euphrates river" described in Gen. 15:18 has nothing what so ever to do, literally or figuratively, with the "Euphrates river" mentioned at the end of Gen. 2:14.If that is what you are implying, then, that is the most rediculous implication I have ever heard.The author of the Heb. Eden Narrative did not exist anywhere on a "pre-flood" earth, Middle East. He existed on the same earth, Middle East, that Abram/Abraham lived. And in Gen. 15:18 God says to Abram:

quote:

---

"To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt {the Nile} to the great river, the river Euphrates" (NRSV).

---

Regards,
Ger

Hey wait a minute, moron I havent been in the mix for a day or so now, why are you implicating me here. Ha Ha. Sorry numerous things came up that prevented me form responding I apologize. Plus I got in trouble for spending to much time on the computer, if you know what I mean. Yeah sure, you can make Eve imaginary, but when I tried it with mine it did not work.I will try to get caught up but I dont know if I will be able to now, OK loser.D Bertot

Jaywill I understood what your meaning was sorry for the late responseD Bertot

AM I dont know if you are way past this now, but I would like to discuss this further, with you, jaywill and the others, unless you are already past this area. If you are just let me know.

bertot: I'm still not receiving "Reply Notification", so I have to check the thread periodically.

quote:

---

AM wrote; Would you like to continue with Gen. 2:21 and the thardemah=deep sleep, the ethereal realm?

​

Let me know.

​

All the best,

---

With any luck I'll receive a "Reply Notification" when you reply to this response.I {perhaps, we} are right where you left us. I am more than ready to continue with Gen. 2:21 and the "Deep Sleep."I'll wait for your reply.All the best,
Ger