KC's interpretation of the Creation Account
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-02-2012, 01:20 PM
 
RE: KC's interpretation of the Creation Account
(09-02-2012 12:40 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Same with Denicio... he vehemently disagrees with me, but I think he likes me as a poster.

THE NEW PHONE BOOK IS HERE!!! THE NEW PHONE BOOK IS HERE!!! (me jumping up and down)

MY name in lights! I am SOMEBODY!!! :-) The chosen has uttered my name!

I do like you KC, and look forward to the evolution of your faith...where ever it takes you. I would never dream of running you off as you are honest, to a fault!

I guess it could be said that i dissagre with you, but more importantly i am just trying to hold up a mirror and see if you see the reflection of your own words.

You have been a christian for 5 years. I was around 12 years old when i could say those words (not that it matters at ALL). It was not till around age 26 that i REALLY went into Self Reflection and Doubt Mode. You have a long journey ahead of you. Hopefully we Souless White Apes can teach you a thing along the way. Sarcasm IS my 2nd language, so expect some ribbing from me. I am an ass...and i am ok with that.

If, by chance, one day...you have an AHA! moment, i know MOST of us here...MYSELF included will welcome you into the fold and absolutly REFUSE to do the "I told you so dance" cuz what I TOLD YOU is of no consequence..its what YOU have to discover on your own journey (holy shit i sound like Obie-Wan Kenobi).

Just remember to READ! Research!
TRY your best to leave Bias at the door.
QUESTION EVERYTHING!!!!!!

D
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Denicio's post
09-02-2012, 02:00 PM (This post was last modified: 09-02-2012 02:00 PM by kingschosen.)
RE: KC's interpretation of the Creation Account
(09-02-2012 01:17 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  I wasn't saying anything about you or suggesting you leave. I was baffled because I thought people respected you (and maybe they do), yet every response has quite a bit of ad hominem. I'm concerned for our members if they can't even approach a civil theist without foaming at the mouth.

Well... it's really just a squeaky wheel. It's not the entire caravan.
(09-02-2012 01:20 PM)Denicio Wrote:  
(09-02-2012 12:40 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Same with Denicio... he vehemently disagrees with me, but I think he likes me as a poster.

THE NEW PHONE BOOK IS HERE!!! THE NEW PHONE BOOK IS HERE!!! (me jumping up and down)

MY name in lights! I am SOMEBODY!!! :-) The chosen has uttered my name!

I do like you KC, and look forward to the evolution of your faith...where ever it takes you. I would never dream of running you off as you are honest, to a fault!

I guess it could be said that i dissagre with you, but more importantly i am just trying to hold up a mirror and see if you see the reflection of your own words.

You have been a christian for 5 years. I was around 12 years old when i could say those words (not that it matters at ALL). It was not till around age 26 that i REALLY went into Self Reflection and Doubt Mode. You have a long journey ahead of you. Hopefully we Souless White Apes can teach you a thing along the way. Sarcasm IS my 2nd language, so expect some ribbing from me. I am an ass...and i am ok with that.

If, by chance, one day...you have an AHA! moment, i know MOST of us here...MYSELF included will welcome you into the fold and absolutly REFUSE to do the "I told you so dance" cuz what I TOLD YOU is of no consequence..its what YOU have to discover on your own journey (holy shit i sound like Obie-Wan Kenobi).

Just remember to READ! Research!
TRY your best to leave Bias at the door.
QUESTION EVERYTHING!!!!!!

D

Ha. Smile

You know my philosophy is to search and find answers. Sometimes, though, my conclusions are different.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2012, 03:22 PM
RE: KC's interpretation of the Creation Account
I'll tell you, "I told you so!"
Tongue

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2012, 03:22 PM (This post was last modified: 09-02-2012 03:25 PM by kineo.)
RE: KC's interpretation of the Creation Account
I really did want to research those JEDP theories some more, thanks for the info Erx! I went and looked it up on Wikipedia to read some more about it too. Good stuff!

I'll have to watch that NOVA special sometime too! Big Grin



And I don't think I give KC too much of a hard time. I honestly think that his beliefs about being the elect are a logical outcome of believing in an all-knowing God. If God knows everything and when he created everything he had to know we would be "wicked" and so he had to have had a reason to do so in the first place. He had to have known some would follow his Bible and others would not. It follows logically that if he knew someone would turn away from his law and he was going to damn them, then he must have wanted to do so- because he did do so. And so those that do follow his law he must have known would do so and he created them to do so. And with that, there is scripture to support it.

I do think it's somewhat "Elitist", but not as though it was something he worked for and achieved. And I think it's dangerous in the sense that some nut job can take it too far and think that since they're one of the "elect" they should being culling the world of the "non-elect". But this sort of extremism is a danger for many types of creeds.

In my mind, that is just pretty logical theology (if you could call theology logical)... I'm sure the way I've explained it leaves holes that you could drive a bus through, but I was just giving a quick summary, not a full-fledged argument. In any case, this is not a God I would wish to worship. Nor is there any known evidence to suggest that this God exists. Nor is there any known evidence to suggest any god exists. Given what we know about the universe it seems simpler to me to disregard the ancillary supernatural explanations.

But in regards to KC preaching- according to his belief, there is no need for him to do so. If God wants someone to convert, then they will convert regardless of his actions. He does not need to force it. And I don't see him doing that.

I don't support being overly aggressive with someone who isn't already overly aggressive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like kineo's post
10-02-2012, 06:02 PM
RE: KC's interpretation of the Creation Account
Ooh, a Hebrew discussion! I like. Cool

First, a bouquet: You’re absolutely correct, KC, that you can’t begin to consider what a particular Biblical passage really means unless you go back to the original language. It’s ludicrous how many preachers pontificate about the Bible who don’t have the slightest command of Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Would anyone listen to an “expert” on Shakespeare who didn’t know English? So kudos to you for attempting an analysis of the Hebrew in the verses in question.

Now the brickbats: You’re way off base in most of what you’ve said. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I suspect you haven’t had much Hebrew grammar yourself and are relying on others for your analysis. That’s OK if your sources are reliable and you’re correctly applying what you’ve found, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. Although I don’t qualify as a Hebrew scholar, I do have a good general background in linguistics and a fair amount of Hebrew under my belt, so let me offer some comments and corrections.

(08-02-2012 04:23 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  First, we have to look at certain Hebrew words. The proper noun Adam isn’t used until chapter 4. In Genesis 1-3 the word adam is used. Please click that link and look at how it is defined.

The translation isn’t “Adam” but is “man” or “mankind”. If the text meant to say “Adam” the proper noun, it would have used the word for it.

This is partly correct. The Hebrew word אדם adam can be either a common noun (‘man, mankind’) or a proper noun (‘Adam,’ i.e. a man’s name). You need to recognize, however, that as a common noun it can mean ‘man’ in the collective sense, i.e., mankind, or an individual man.

How can you tell if it’s the common noun or the proper noun? After all, there are no capitals in Hebrew. What you need to do is find clues in both the grammar and the context. For example, if the definite article is prefixed—ha-adam, ‘the man’—it’s clearly the common noun. But just from that, you still don’t know if it’s ‘the (individual) man’ or ‘man’ in the general or collective sense. (Hebrew can use the article for the general sense, just like French does: C’est la vie means 'That’s life,' not 'That’s the life.') To distinguish those meanings you need the context. But sometimes the word is ambiguous, and both readings are possible.

For example, in Gen. 1:26, “Let us make man in our image . . .” the bare word adam is used. In 1:27, “And God created man in His image . . .” it’s with the article: ha-adam. In these cases it’s pretty clear the meaning is mankind in general, because of the plural verb forms and pronouns, which you’ve noted below. (More about that in a bit.)

But in the majority of cases in Gen. 1-3, ha-adam refers to ‘the man’—i.e., one individual man, namely Adam. For example, look at 2:18-22, the story about Eve being created from Adam’s rib. In 18, ha-adam is ambiguous: it could mean “It is not good for man to be alone” or “It is not good for the man (i.e. Adam) to be alone.” Either reading makes sense. But after that there’s no more ambiguity—all the instances of adam in this passage refer to Adam, because the corresponding verb forms are singular. For example, 19: “. . . whatever the man [i.e. Adam] called each living creature, that would be its name.” In this verse, “called” is singular, so it can only refer to the individual man Adam.

BTW, it’s not true that “the proper noun Adam isn’t used until chapter 4.” It’s used in both 2 and 3. E.g. 2:20 “. . . but for Adam no fitting helper was found.” And 3:17 “To Adam he said . . .” I think you’re getting confused because of the prefixed le- meaning ‘to’ or ‘for.’ Also note that the verb forms in this passage are singular: “Because you did as your wife said,” or more literally, “Because you harkened unto the voice of your wife.” The singular verbs mean God is speaking to an individual.


Quote:Now, let’s look at the Hebrew in 1:26-27. Radah means to “make dominion over”; however, the form of the word that is used translates a plural. Take a look at the literal translation from the YLT:

26And God saith, `Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that is creeping on the earth.'

Correct. Full marks. The verb form in question, yirdu, is indeed a plural. But see below.


Quote:This continues with verse 27 with the untranslatable word in the accusative case ’ō•ṯōw. This word shows a plural of more than 3 and is usually translated as “them”.

Again, in the YLT:

27And God prepareth the man in His image; in the image of God He prepared him, a male and a female He prepared them.

So, in Hebrew, the bolded “them” shows more than two. This means that them is a “collective them” and doesn’t mean just “a man and a woman”.

This again continues in verse 28 as God tells all humans what to do:

28And God blesseth them, and God saith to them, `Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over every living thing that is creeping upon the earth.'

This explains how the earth had many people on it before Adam and Eve. And remember, the aforementioned scripture is a story and not literal.

This type of language continues throughout the rest of 1, 2, and 3. The proper name of “Adam” isn’t mentioned until chapter 4 when his lineage is being discussed.

This is where you’ve gone most seriously astray.

First of all, ’otow is not at all untranslatable. It’s perfectly translatable: it’s just the third-person masculine singular object pronoun, i.e. ‘him’—not ‘them.’ Later in 1:27 you do in fact have the word for ‘them,” ’otam, which is the third-person masculine plural object pronoun. (For mixed genders, Hebrew uses the masculine form, just like Spanish: muchachos y muchachas contentos, ‘happy boys and girls.’)

The crux of the matter, however, is this: You’re saying the plural form represents three or more, which is the basis for your claim that the Bible indicates there were many people on the earth prior to Adam and Eve. But that's a misunderstanding. The Hebrew plural generally indicates two or more, just as in English. The basis for the confusion doubtless lies in the fact that Hebrew does have a dual form, separate from the plural, that indicates two of something. Simply on the basis of that fact you might think it's always the case that singular = 1, dual = 2, and plural = 3 or more. Trouble is, the dual is extremely restricted. According to the best current Biblical Hebrew reference grammar, C.L. Seow’s A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew, “Not every noun has the dual form. Indeed, the dual is restricted to the following: i. Nouns that come in natural pairs. ‘two hands, two feet’; ii Certain expressions of time. ‘two days, twice’; iii Measures of two. ‘two, two hundred.’” Also, a few weird nouns are marked as dual that have no obvious connection to the number two. But the point is that other than the instances Seow mentions, the plural indicates two or more, not three or more.

So in 1:28, where God says “Be fruitful and multiply,” there’s no justification from the Hebrew to think He’s talking to anyone other than two people. I see nothing at all in the original text that could lead someone to believe the Bible indicates there were people on the earth prior to Adam and Eve.

Hope that helps. Smile

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cufflink's post
10-02-2012, 07:09 PM
RE: KC's interpretation of the Creation Account
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Cufflink is a stud!

[Image: HowtoWearCufflinks.jpg]

I wish I had known you when I was struggling through my intro Hebrew class. I might have gone on. Then again, that would be even more knowledge that I can't put on my resume!

I'm just in awe of your mastery of the language. It makes me want to say:




It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2012, 08:14 PM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2012 08:33 PM by cufflink.)
RE: KC's interpretation of the Creation Account
@ Erxomai:

Blush You're very kind. But as with so many things, the more I know, the more I realize I don't know.

Languages are like music and chess: you're way ahead of the game if you start when you're a kid. When I was around 8, my parents sent me to Hebrew school, and I continued after my Bar Mitzvah in Hebrew High School three days a week. So although I'm not fluent (maybe someday I'll spend extended time in Israel and get better), I have a decent grounding in the language and it feels pretty natural to me.

I don't know how Classical Hebrew is taught today in most seminaries, but I suspect the approach is similar to the way Latin is taught: you learn to read but not to speak. If so, that's a pity. Because of the unusual history of Hebrew (displaced as a spoken language by Aramaic prior to Jesus' time, defunct except for religious and literary purposes for millennia, then brought back from the dead, with some changes, to become the native language of around 6 million Israelis), the modern language and the Biblical language are not all that far apart--certainly closer than, say, Ancient and Modern Greek. I think the best approach is to begin to learn Modern Hebrew and actually use the language for communication, and then make the transition to Biblical. The syntax is a little different, but it's manageable.

For anyone interested in Biblical Hebrew, there's an amazing resource available on the 'Net:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/ptmp3prq.htm

This is the entire OT (presented mostly in the Jewish order) in mp3's, chapter by chapter, read--not chanted!--in the original Hebrew by someone whose identity I've tried to discover, to no avail. This guy is amazing. Not only is the Hebrew crystal clear, but the pronunciation he uses is more faithful to what the Biblical language probably sounded like than modern Israeli pronunciation would be. Here, for example, is the 23rd psalm, probably fairly close to what it sounded like 2500 years ago:

http://media.snunit.k12.il/kodeshm/mp3/t2623.mp3

Listening to it rather than reading it, you really get the sense that it's poetry. For example, listen to the alliteration in "You anoint my head with oil":

deesh-SHAN-ta vash-SHEM-en ro-SHEE

Really quite beautiful, I think.

(BTW, I don't know a word of Greek, so you're way ahead of me there. Smile )

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cufflink's post
10-02-2012, 08:25 PM
RE: KC's interpretation of the Creation Account
I listened to the 23rd Psalm. I felt I could follow a lot of the same rhythm as I would have read from the KJV for many a funeral.

It's amazing to me that Modern Hebrew is close to Ancient. I somehow thought it would have been the same as Modern Greek and Koine Greek. I also had the distinction of learning Greek from an Orthodox Priest. The Orthodox Liturgy is in Greek so we learned Liturgical Greek which has another different pronunciation.

Thanks for sharing your insights. Wink

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
10-02-2012, 08:32 PM
RE: KC's interpretation of the Creation Account
(09-02-2012 12:40 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  TalledagaTom has always ripped on me. Chas... sort of... he did at first, now he's pretty chill. Same with Denicio... he vehemently disagrees with me, but I think he likes me as a poster.

TT just dislikes everything about me.

My beliefs invoke angry responses from some. It's not intentional; it's just how it is.

Oh, think about this way KC. You've been Chosen! Angel

It's all in your head, because there is no other place it could be.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2012, 10:02 PM
RE: KC's interpretation of the Creation Account
(08-02-2012 04:23 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Now, let’s look at why I believe this:

First, we have to look at certain Hebrew words.

The above quote leads me to what would seem another obvious question: Why does it have to be SOO00oo difficult to find the "true" meaning of god's message? Seems like he would lose a lot of believers on sheer academia alone. It only seems fair (maybe that's the problem...) that every translation of the bible should be somehow filtered by god, so people with less brain power and/or determination could get the right message. Why has he done that on some occasions but not others? Does this make sense to anyone? Or am I just being lazy for not translating EVERY SINGLE WORD in the bible from the original language in order to make sense of what god really meant?

"Religion is the binky of a teen-age humanity."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like yosemitesam's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: