|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Biblical Translation—Eden, 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
autumnman Member (Idle past 5013 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
bertot: I am of good cheer, and am enjoying our discussion a great deal. Have a good time at the movies. The Hulk is a cool dude, dude. Who could not dig the Hulk.
On to the subject at hand: Apparently some the Hellenic Jews in the last half of the first century BC began incorporating Greek Mythology into their understanding of Septuagint’s rendering of “paradise”. This Hellenic fusion into the Septuagint Scriptures is described in the Thayer Gk.-Eng. Lexicon of the NT in this fashion:
quote: Pay close attention to this paradise as being a “part of Hades” and the abode of pious souls. This is precisely the purpose of the Greek mythical place called the Elysian Fields. Larousse World Mythology states:
quote: The Elysian Fields were still a part of “The Underworld” {a.k.a. Hades}, but it was a paradise filled with pleasures for the “elect or pious” souls. Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary defines Elysian Fields as: “The abode of the blessed after death.” Greek Mythology, my friend. Perhaps this is why the Hebrew author of 2nd Kings 2:1 did think it necessary to clarify the exact place in the heavens {wrongly construed as 'the spirit realm'} where the LORD took Elijah. The Hebrew author of 2nd Kings 2:1 did not abide by Greek Mythology. What do you know! All the best,Ger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
AM writes
Perhaps this is why the Hebrew author of 2nd Kings 2:1 did think it necessary to clarify the exact place in the heavens {wrongly construed as 'the spirit realm'} where the LORD took Elijah. The Hebrew author of 2nd Kings 2:1 did not abide by Greek Mythology. Where did Old Testament believers/saints go when they died? | GotQuestions.org
Where did Old Testament believers go when they died? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Question: "Where did Old Testament believers go when they died?" Answer: The Old Testament teaches life after death, and that all people went to a place of conscious existence called Sheol. The wicked were there (Psalm 9:17; 31:17; 49:14; Isaiah 5:14), and so were the righteous (Genesis 37:35; Job 14:13; Psalm 6:5; 16:10; 88:3; Isaiah 38:10). The New Testament equivalent of Sheol is Hades. Prior to Christ’s resurrection, Luke 16:19-31 shows Hades to be divided into two realms: a place of comfort where Lazarus was, and a place of torment where the rich man was. The word hell in verse 23 is not “Gehenna” (place of eternal torment) but “Hades” (place of the dead). Lazarus’s place of comfort is elsewhere called Paradise (Luke 23:43). Between these two districts of Hades is “a great gulf fixed” (Luke 16:26). Jesus is described as having descended into Hades after His death (Acts 2:27, 31; cf. Ephesians 4:9). At the resurrection of Jesus Christ, it seems that the believers in Hades (i.e., the occupants of Paradise) were moved to another location. Now, Paradise is above rather than below (2 Corinthians 12:2-4). Today, when a believer dies, he is “present with the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:6-9). When an unbeliever dies, he follows the Old Testament unbelievers to Hades. At the final judgment, Hades will be emptied before the Great White Throne, where its occupants will be judged prior to entering the lake of fire (Revelation 20:13-15). Recommended Resource: What the Bible Says about Heaven & Eternity by Ice & Demy. It seems AM the old Testament corroborates the NT in this teaching and that it was not a new item as you suggest. Look at the verses this website offers. D Bertot Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
autumnman Member (Idle past 5013 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
bertot:
quote: Gen. 37:35 “I will go down into the grave.” Jacob was very much alive, saying, “I will go down into the grave.” The Hebrew term for “grave” is — she>olah used literally and figuratively. Don’t get the applications confused. Psalms 9:17 “They shall be turned, the wicked {plural} —— lishe>olah into the grave.” Job 14:13 “That thou wouldest hide me ‘— bishe>ol in a grave.” Psalms 31:17 “let them {the wicked {plural} —— lishe>ol unto the grave.” Psalms 6:5 “For in death there is no remembrance of thee: ‘— bishe>ol in the grave who shall give thee thanks.” Psalms 49:14 “Like sheep they are laid —— lishe>ol in the grave.” Psalms 16:10 “For not you will leave my breath —— lishe>ol at the grave.” Isaiah 5:14 “wide — she>ol the grave will open” Psalms 88:3 “and my life draweth nigh —— lishe>ol unto the grave. Isaiah 38:10 “I said in the cutting off of my days, I shall go to the entrance of — she>ol the grave.” Nowhere in any of these passages does the Hebrew term — she>ol ever denote Hades or Hell or any other supernatural location. In the above passages the Hebrew term — she>ol is only referring to the grave. I have nothing to gain by trying to deceive you. I don’t even know you. It is my opinion, however, that someone (or many such individuals) are not giving you all the literary insights you need to make an informed decision. All the best,Ger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Apparently some the Hellenic Jews in the last half of the first century BC began incorporating Greek Mythology into their understanding of Septuagint’s rendering of “paradise”. This Hellenic fusion into the Septuagint Scriptures is described in the Thayer Gk.-Eng. Lexicon of the NT in this fashion: quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- paradise (Gk.) That part of Hades which was thought by Hellenic Jews to be the abode of the souls of the pious until the resurrection {Luke 23:43 cf. 16:23). But most understand that passage of the heavenly paradise. Thayer Gk.-Eng. Lexicon; NT Thayers definition of Paradise is in exact correspondence with the verses he cites. His further estimation of the "heavenly paradise" is also in exact correspondence with the teaching of scripture. Your estimation of "incorperating Greek mythology" is yours, not Thayers.
Perhaps this is why the Hebrew author of 2nd Kings 2:1 did think it necessary to clarify the exact place in the heavens {wrongly construed as 'the spirit realm'} where the LORD took Elijah. The Hebrew author of 2nd Kings 2:1 did not abide by Greek Mythology. Both the Old and NT writers refer at times to the spiritual realms as simply heaven or heavenly places. Eph. 6:12 says, "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places." Here Paul uses the term to mean all of it beings and the respective places in this realm. It is an assumption that the writers of the Old Testament did not have a belief in Hades, Paradise and these terms and concepts apart from the general idea of the Heavenly places.
Strong's Hebrew Lexicon Search Results -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Result of search for "hades":9 'abedah ab-ay-daw' from 6; concrete, something lost; abstract, destruction, i.e. Hades:--lost. Compare 10. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------11 'abaddown ab-ad-done' intensive from 6; abstract, a perishing; concrete, Hades:--destruction. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4194 maveth maw'-veth from 4191; death (natural or violent); concretely, the dead, their place or state (hades); figuratively, pestilence, ruin:--(be) dead((-ly)), death, die(-d). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7585 sh'owl sheh-ole' or shol {sheh-ole'}; from 7592; Hades or the world of the dead (as if a subterranean retreat), including its accessories and inmates:--grave, hell, pit. Here the words describe more than simply the grave or ground. D Bertot Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
AM writes
Gen. 37:35 “I will go down into the grave.” Jacob was very much alive, saying, “I will go down into the grave.” The Hebrew term for “grave” is — she>olah used literally and figuratively. Don’t get the applications confused. Nowhere in any of these passages does the Hebrew term — she>ol ever denote Hades or Hell or any other supernatural location. In the above passages the Hebrew term — she>ol is only referring to the grave. I have nothing to gain by trying to deceive you. I don’t even know you. It is my opinion, however, that someone (or many such individuals) are not giving you all the literary insights you need to make an informed decision. Strongs does not agree with your very limited definition of the word grave. Perhaps it it is you who is giving a limited amount of information to make an informed decision. Pay close attention to all the definitions.
Strong's Hebrew Lexicon Search Results Result of search for "grave":1164 b`iy beh-ee' from 1158; a prayer:--grave. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------2672 chatsab khaw-tsab' or chatseb {khaw-tsabe'}; a primitive root ; to cut or carve (wood), stone or other material); by implication, to hew, split, square, quarry, engrave:--cut, dig, divide, grave, hew (out, -er), made, mason. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2710 chaqaq khaw-kak' a primitive root; properly, to hack, i.e. engrave (Judges 5:14, to be a scribe simply); by implication, to enact (laws being cut in stone or metal tablets in primitive times) or (gen.) prescribe:--appoint, decree, governor, grave, lawgiver, note, pourtray, print, set. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3789 kathab kaw-thab' a primitive root; to grave, by implication, to write (describe, inscribe, prescribe, subscribe):--describe, record, prescribe, subscribe, write(-ing, -ten). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4908 mishkan mish-kawn' from 7931; a residence (including a shepherd's hut, the lair of animals, figuratively, the grave; also the Temple); specifically, the Tabernacle (properly, its wooden walls):--dwelleth, dwelling (place), habitation, tabernacle, tent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6458 pacal paw-sal' a primitive root; to carve, whether wood or stone:--grave, hew. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6603 pittuwach pit-too'-akh or pittuach {pit-too'-akh; passive participle of 6605; sculpture (in low or high relief or even intaglio):--carved (work) (are, en-)grave(-ing, -n). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6605 pathach paw-thakh' a primitive root; to open wide (literally or figuratively); specifically, to loosen, begin, plough, carve:--appear, break forth, draw (out), let go free, (en-)grave(-n), loose (self), (be, be set) open(-ing), put off, ungird, unstop, have vent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6757 tsalmaveth tsal-maw'-veth from 6738 and 4194; shade of death, i.e. the grave (figuratively, calamity):--shadow of death. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6900 qbuwrah keb-oo-raw' or qburah {keb-oo-raw'}; feminine passive participle of 6912; sepulture; (concretely) a sepulchre:--burial, burying place, grave, sepulchre. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6913 qeber, keh'-ber or (feminine) qibrah {kib-raw'}; from 6912; a sepulchre:--burying place, grave, sepulchre. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7585 sh'owl sheh-ole' or shol {sheh-ole'}; from 7592; Hades or the world of the dead (as if a subterranean retreat), including its accessories and inmates:--grave, hell, pit. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7845 shachath shakh'-ath from 7743; a pit (especially as a trap); figuratively, destruction:--corruption, destruction, ditch, grave, pit. It appears that both in the Old and New Testaments these concepts were used and employed. The fact that the NT highlights or brings into clearer focus these terms, concepts and ideas is of no great surprise, as in the example of the plurality of the "Us" mentioned in the book of Genesis, then its further application and expanded knowledge of the triune God made clearer in the NT. Interlinear Bible - Greek and Hebrew with Concordance?
Definition sheol, underworld, grave, hell, pit the underworld Sheol - the OT designation for the abode of the dead place of no return without praise of God wicked sent there for punishment righteous not abandoned to it of the place of exile (fig) of extreme degradation in sin King James Word Usage - Total: 65grave 31, hell 31, pit 3 KJV Verse CountGenesis 4 Numbers 2 Deuteronomy 1 1 Samuel 1 2 Samuel 1 1 Kings 2 Job 8 Psalms 15 Proverbs 9 Ecclesiastes 1 Solomon 1 Isaiah 9 Ezekiel 5 Hosea 1 Amos 1 Jonah 1 Habakkuk 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 63 The Hebrew lexicon is Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon; this is keyed to the "Theological Word Book of the Old Testament." These files are considered public domain. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Previous Entry: sha'avah | Next Entry: Sha'uwl D Bertot Edited by bertot, : No reason given. Edited by bertot, : No reason given. Edited by bertot, : No reason given. Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
autumnman Member (Idle past 5013 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
bertot:
Strongs does not agree with your very limited definition of the word grave. Perhaps it it is you who is giving a limited amount of information to make an informed decision. Pay close attention to all the definitions. You have got to be kidding. I went through all of those verses provided in you previous post for nothing? You can have your superstition: Hell, the devil, demons, walking on water, raising the dead, whatever. Just don’t try to claim it as fact or truth. This is all way too much work for way too little reward. Again, I don’t care what you believe in. When the text says God took Elijah up into the heavens; that is precisely what the author is saying. Elijah did not go up into “paradise”, “sheol”, hades, or any other place other than “the heavens” and the LORD took him up there. When the Gospel of John claims “And no man has ascended up to heaven”; the Gospel of John is sadly mistaken. Now then, you can make up any stories out of the Bible or Strong’s dictionary that you wish. Christians should be really good at making up stories by now; they’ve had two thousand years to practice their Hellenic-Roman Faith. Have a good one,Ger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
AM writes
You have got to be kidding. I went through all of those verses provided in you previous post for nothing? You can have your superstition: Hell, the devil, demons, walking on water, raising the dead, whatever. Just don’t try to claim it as fact or truth. This is all way too much work for way too little reward.Again, I don’t care what you believe in. Some days your arrogance is off the charts. So, your offical, professional position is as lomg as I agree with you and your ideas, concepts, terms, definitions and interpretations we can have a discussion. When you qoute from a lexicon or scholar as long as I see your interpretation in his definitions and words, then we can have a discussion? Since you believe in nothing but the Hebrew Eden narravtive and nothing of the rest of the OT or NT, would it really matter who ascended to heaven, where they went or how they got there? You almost seem to defend the inspiration of Biblical Hebrew, yet I know from these experiences with you that you believe nothing of the rest of the stories in the Hebrew OT. How would you therefore know what the ancient Hebrews believed about the after life, its exact details, interpretations and ideologies?
Now then, you can make up any stories out of the Bible or Strong’s dictionary that you wish. Christians should be really good at making up stories by now; they’ve had two thousand years to practice their Hellenic-Roman Faith. Your offical position seems to be that only you can be correct. Others, studies,beliefs, opinions and ideologies are all absolutley incorrect unless they fall in line with your position. Since we are talking about making up stories, who made up the Eden narrative. Is there any real good reason in believing it is inspired any shape form or fashion? D Bertot Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
autumnman Member (Idle past 5013 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
bertot:
In my personal opinion you are a very fine person. I do not agree with your Christian belief system, but I would fight and die for your right to believe as you see fit. The only thing that causes me considerable concern is when someone expects me to “believe” as they do because they claim that their “belief” happens to be “The Truth.” I base my research on lexicographic and grammatical foundations. And I employ objective reality to my interpretations of the ancient texts I study. I do not claim to be correct and am open to other ideas that are also based on lexicographic, grammatical, and realistic foundations. I cannot discuss superstitious ideas, or beliefs that I know to be unrealistic and fanciful regardless of how old the text may be or how many years that religious doctrine has been influencing human minds. If you do not believe that there is a Textual Inconsistency existing between 2nd Kings 2:1 and John 3:13 that is fine with me. I, on the other hand, do perceive a Textual Inconsistency existing between 2nd Kings 2:1 and John 3:13. That is as far as I can take our discussion. Your wrote:
Your offical position seems to be that only you can be correct. That has never been my contention. The “grave” is a fact. “Hell” and the “Devil” are not. According to your Christian superstition “Hell” is below, and “heaven” is above. One does not ascend to that which is below. If that makes me “correct” then so be it. If you can’t handle the facts then just stay with your superstition and be happy. But don’t try to claim that it is “Truth”.
Others, studies,beliefs, opinions and ideologies are all absolutley incorrect unless they fall in line with your position. Honest studies, personal beliefs, personal opinions and ideologies are absolutely correct as long as they are conveyed as “personal.” No one has to fall in line with my position. If someone wants to proclaim “dust” as being wet, I could care less. Dust is dry. That is how reality works. After the whole surface of the ground is irrigated one would not go out and say, “Boy is it dusty today.” My position is that “dust” is dry, the “grave” is real, and noone ascends into the “grave.” The definite article prefixed form of “the heavens” does not describe Hades, and “paradise” does not describe a lower level of the spiritual realm.
Since we are talking about making up stories, who made up the Eden narrative. Someone who knew that “dust was dry.” That’s a plus insofar as I’m concerned.
Is there any real good reason in believing it is inspired any shape form or fashion? Absolutely none. Dull witted superstition has won the day. When Jesus comes back everything will be better. All the best,Ger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
bertot: In my personal opinion you are a very fine person. I do not agree with your Christian belief system, but I would fight and die for your right to believe as you see fit. The only thing that causes me considerable concern is when someone expects me to “believe” as they do because they claim that their “belief” happens to be “The Truth.” I dont expect anyone to "believe" anything that is not supported and substantiated by fact, evidence and information that is characterized by the highest standards of verifiable documentation. It just so happens that Judeo-Chritianity falls well within those parameters.
I base my research on lexicographic and grammatical foundations. And I employ objective reality to my interpretations of the ancient texts I study. I do not claim to be correct and am open to other ideas that are also based on lexicographic, grammatical, and realistic foundations. I cannot discuss superstitious ideas, or beliefs that I know to be unrealistic and fanciful regardless of how old the text may be or how many years that religious doctrine has been influencing human minds. Bully for you, so does everyone else. The supernatural as you call it can only be reasonable if the supporting evidence tends to corroborate its possibility and reality. Intervention and inspiration in the text should be recognizable and identifiable, as it is within the pages of the Old and New Testaments. All the supporting historical and archeological evidence lend greater support for these concepts and ideas. The mere fact that God exists as you suggest yourself should lead one closer to a greater understanding of this possibility. Far from being superstitious, ones belief in an actual creator, an actual personality in the reality of Deity, should move one from the idea of superstitous to actuality. You have tried to maintain that "faith" is not involved in your positon in these areas, sorry AM, no matter how you cut it or try to avoid that very real idea, it is there for you as well,in your position you hold regarding the Eden narrative., ie, "other than Human imput", etc, etc.
If you do not believe that there is a Textual Inconsistency existing between 2nd Kings 2:1 and John 3:13 that is fine with me. I, on the other hand, do perceive a Textual Inconsistency existing between 2nd Kings 2:1 and John 3:13. That is as far as I can take our discussion. When the Word of God is understood in context and in its entirity on a topic things are usually made clear, as in this csae. The cold hard uncompromising approach you are attempting will never let you see any reality or truth. For example, you stuborness in this instance will not let you see that there could easily be, very different locations and areas in the "heavenlly reals", Eph 4:12.Secondly, as I have pointed out, John is pointing out the preeminence of Christs decension and ascension, as Paul pointed out his preeminece in the areas of "resurrection" and as in his "creation" as an incarnate being, both of which could be constructed as a contradiction should someone want to try. That has never been my contention. The “grave” is a fact. “Hell” and the “Devil” are not. According to your Christian superstition “Hell” is below, and “heaven” is above. One does not ascend to that which is below. If that makes me “correct” then so be it. If you can’t handle the facts then just stay with your superstition and be happy. But don’t try to claim that it is “Truth”. You are still missing the point. You specific beliefs are not what are in question here. The question simply is, from a contextual standpoint can it be demonstrated that there is no real contradiction and of course the answer is yes. To much "textual" evidence can be leveled to show that Heaven is neither up or down in reality, but demensional in nature. Also, that everything including hell is in the Heavenly realms, Eph 4:12. Your offical hard line stance and regardless of wehether you believe it as superstitous, has really nothing to do with wether or not the text can provide enough evidence to avoid appearent contradiction. More in a minute D Bertot Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
AM writes
Honest studies, personal beliefs, personal opinions and ideologies are absolutely correct as long as they are conveyed as “personal.” No one has to fall in line with my position. If someone wants to proclaim “dust” as being wet, I could care less. Dust is dry. That is how reality works. After the whole surface of the ground is irrigated one would not go out and say, “Boy is it dusty today.” My position is that “dust” is dry, the “grave” is real, and noone ascends into the “grave.” The definite article prefixed form of “the heavens” does not describe Hades, and “paradise” does not describe a lower level of the spiritual realm. This is exacally my point AM. There is simply no compromise in you "interpres" method of translation. Do you really believe Jesus meant he brought swords for everyone to use, when he said, "I have not come to bring peace, but the sword". Here the word sword could and would probably translate to mean an actual sword, but should we understand it that way? The answer is simply NO. Could the heavens not be in any direction but demensional in character. Do the heavens only include and invole one specfic location. Are there not different locations in the universe itself. I am in the universe right now but I am not in Colorado. Lighten up tight pockets.
Someone who knew that “dust was dry.” That’s a plus insofar as I’m concerned. Well there you go, with that type of overwhelming evidence and insight, I should be able to believe anything. I wonder if he knew damp was wet? The overly obvious is not necessary AM, the obvious will do just fine.
Absolutely none. Dull witted superstition has won the day. When Jesus comes back everything will be better. Superstition is unsubstantiated AM, happily Judeo-Christianity does not fall into this category. Jesus has already made things clear at present, his return will only corroborate those facts. "There are none so blind, as those that will not see". D Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Yes a breather, thats it, that is exacally what we needed.
D Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
autumnman Member (Idle past 5013 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
bertot:
We have 36 posts left. It will more than likely take all thirty-six posts to arrive at a collective comprehension of the Masoretic Hebrew Text and the Alexandrian-Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. I am up to it if you are. All the best,Ger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
bertot: We have 36 posts left. It will more than likely take all thirty-six posts to arrive at a collective comprehension of the Masoretic Hebrew Text and the Alexandrian-Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. I am up to it if you are. AM, that sounds great. As I indicated in the e-mail correspondences I am very busy at present, give me a day or so to catch things up in the real world. I also should have indicated he "dead sea scrolls" in my recommendation for further discussion, along with the Septuagint See you in a while. D Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
autumnman Member (Idle past 5013 days) Posts: 621 From: Colorado Joined: |
bertot: The following is some information I found at the Jewish Virtual Library and the Bible & Science web sites. You will probably find it interesting and informative.
History & Overview of the Dead Sea Scrolls
quote: IBSS - Biblical Archaeology - Dead Sea Scrolls
quote: All the best,Ger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
AM, Whats up loser, those are some pretty good websites, I have also been researching these subjects from such titles as 'The Dead Sea scrolls BIBLE', by Martin Abegg, Peter Flint and Eugene Ulrich. 'The Septuagint as Christian Scripture', Martin Hengel. and 'The canon Debate', Lee Martin Mcdonald and James A Smith. As I read your websites you provided I noticed there was alot of repetitive material that I had read. Good stuff.
I should be able to start the argument process tommorrow evening. Most of the material I have been reading is simply to extensive to include it all, so I will try and leave it at the more basic arguments and information. Not being scholars ourself that should not present itself as a "big problem", especially from my standpoint. One thing I would caution before we continue with the discussion, is that you and I keep in mind, we are coming from two very different backgrounds. I am naturally going to include the very definate possibility of divine guidance in the process. That being said however, I believe I can be as objective as possible with the physical evidence. The physical evidence wont always agree with your or my positions or personal views, nor does it need to. Your view of what and how a perfect God would operate and what he would allow or not allow is not going to be the same as mine. I am not presenting this as any kind of compromise, because I believe the evidence will support my positon on the matter (big surprise eh). If however, these cannot be considerations we will fall back into the rut, that will naturally follow. I will try and get started tommorrow after work. Also, due to real world issues my reponses wont be as quick as they were in the past few months, please dont view this as lack of desire or interest, I will get to them as soon as possible. thanks for your patience. D Bertot Edited by bertot, : No reason given. Edited by bertot, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024