Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
Imaging the way these words would have been originally have been received by Adam, as an iconographic sequence of concepts, death is not ultimate in any sense, but is rather a process.
So God not only spoke Hebrew to Adam, but taught him the full Hebrew alphabet and how to write in it as well as the allegorical significance behind the iconography of every letter represented in it. That makes perfect sense, busterdog; and I am sure that Jesus and Peter also spoke perfectly grammatical Koine Greek all the time.
And do you know Chinese? Because I do. Now the Chinese language is far, far more pregnant with iconographic meaning than the extremely limited Hebrew language: the Hebrew language consists (like English) of twenty-something glyphs and is constructed so that just the linear order in which those glyphs is written differentiates words, while the Chinese language consists of hundreds (if not thousands) of glyphs that can be composed in a character in almost any spatial arrangement - above, below, inside, outside ... and yet no Chinese translator ever has to take any "iconographic meaning" into account when translating from Chinese into English. If Chinese with its hundreds of basic "icons" doesn't need iconographic meaning, why should Hebrew with only twenty-five?
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
So God not only spoke Hebrew to Adam, but taught him the full Hebrew alphabet and how to write in it as well as the allegorical significance behind the iconography of every letter represented in it.
Not only that. But, Adam was made with a belly-button!! Isn't that amazing?
Or, let me guess, you don't believe in a literal Adam? Or am I going out on a limb with the latter more than the former? Thing is, I came up with this radical form of criticism. I figure out what your a priori belief system says and then I, in a mocking tone, remind you that mine is superior! Oh wait, you already know that one.
And do you know Chinese? Because I do. Now the Chinese language is far, far more pregnant with iconographic meaning than the extremely limited Hebrew language: the Hebrew language consists (like English) of twenty-something glyphs and is constructed so that just the linear order in which those glyphs is written differentiates words, while the Chinese language consists of hundreds (if not thousands) of glyphs that can be composed in a character in almost any spatial arrangement - above, below, inside, outside ... and yet no Chinese translator ever has to take any "iconographic meaning" into account when translating from Chinese into English. If Chinese with its hundreds of basic "icons" doesn't need iconographic meaning, why should Hebrew with only twenty-five?
SInce Chinese is a rip-off of Hebrew, of course. That troublesome Shem or Ham or whoever it was!
I was going to get you a link for the embedded biblical concepts in Chinese characters, but would only cause you to go on for about five parapgraphs on something I don't really care about. Its a modified form of trolling. SO, I will save you the trouble.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
Just pointing out that this is really nothing more than pointless kabbalistic meddling. To think that we evolutionists are taken to task for non-literalness! Creationism is no guarantee of sound doctrine, for sure.
By a man who has no idea what kabballa means.
Here is a little primer for you:
Now, when Esther (the artist formerly known as Madonna) here is singing "Like a Virgin", she is not speaking in the literal sense. In the bible, when we speak of a "virgin", it means a literal virgin birth. So, there is a difference between Kabbalists and those who believe in biblical inerrancy. In the mystical sense, fornication is regarded as clean-ness. That is Kabbala. In the biblical sense, believing what God says (which implies doing what God says) is clean-ness.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
Last edited by busterdog; 12th July 2008 at 10:39 AM.
I would have thought it was your responsibility to show that it isn't. You are going against a very large body of bible scholarship that treats the combination of infinitive + finite verb as a grammatical construction that simply strengthens or emphasises the verb, or leaves it untranslated.
* * *
Young's doesn't translate the verb twice as he does in Genesis 2 but instead follows normal grammatical rules and emphasises the verb with words like 'certainly' 'diligently' or 'greatly'. The ESV does the same with 'strictly' 'freely' and 'wide' but twice takes the other option of simply leaving it untranslated.
To show that it is not "idiom", unfortunately, I begin with an assumption. I don't think there is another way to conclude it is or it isn't. If there is inerrant, literal content, my construction is consistent with that view. Or at least, I don't see the point of having that debate again.
One thing my translation does is to show how several concepts that were missing in the various English translations. I then show how the words of Genesis combine the several concepts into two words. That consistency does provide some support for the notion that I am on the right track.
There are several issues of meaning:
1. The difference between an absolute ending of death and what is meant by God here. 2. What is living under the curse like, as in morbidity? 3 What is the nature of the sentence of death or infinitive? 4. How does this construct relate to other first concepts (snake/adversary, chaos, authority) 5. The distinction between living with or apart from God.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
Not only that. But, Adam was made with a belly-button!! Isn't that amazing?
Or, let me guess, you don't believe in a literal Adam? Or am I going out on a limb with the latter more than the former? Thing is, I came up with this radical form of criticism. I figure out what your a priori belief system says and then I, in a mocking tone, remind you that mine is superior! Oh wait, you already know that one.
Even if I believed a literal Adam: there is simply no Biblical reason to assume that God spoke to him in Hebrew. He could have, of course. Or it could've been Chinese. Or English. Or that strange African language with the click-click things. The words were recorded in Hebrew, of course, but that has no impact on the language in which they were spoken.
Did Jesus speak Koine Greek? Highly unlikely; indeed, the Gospel authors transliterated His Aramaic to convey the sheer agony of His speech upon the Cross, which makes it all but certain that He also spoke Aramaic in His everyday discourse. Your strange iconographic arguments make about as much sense as trying to argue that Jesus taught about the Trinity because the epsilon looks like a backwards "3": when He most likely did not even speak Greek in the first place ...
Originally Posted by busterdog
SInce Chinese is a rip-off of Hebrew, of course. That troublesome Shem or Ham or whoever it was!
I was going to get you a link for the embedded biblical concepts in Chinese characters, but would only cause you to go on for about five parapgraphs on something I don't really care about. Its a modified form of trolling. SO, I will save you the trouble.
Hmm, I do know about the "Discovery of Genesis" by Nelson and Broadberry and I don't have any particular conviction about it one way or the other. (Remember, I've been in the creationist position before. Don't make the mistake of assuming I don't know what we're talking about.)
Again you simply don't have the guts to engage my arguments. Even if the Genesis Code is true, it does nothing whatsoever to force the discarding of traditional interpretations of the Bible. What you are proposing is entirely different and quite silly. I don't need Chinese iconography to read my Chinese Bible. Why should I need Hebrew iconography (which, in the first place, we don't even know Biblically that God employed with Adam) to read a Hebrew Bible, when Hebrew is immensely less iconographic than Chinese?
Originally Posted by busterdog
By a man who has no idea what kabballa means.
Here is a little primer for you:
Now, when Esther (the artist formerly known as Madonna) here is singing "Like a Virgin", she is not speaking in the literal sense. In the bible, when we speak of a "virgin", it means a literal virgin birth. So, there is a difference between Kabbalists and those who believe in biblical inerrancy. In the mystical sense, fornication is regarded as clean-ness. That is Kabbala. In the biblical sense, believing what God says (which implies doing what God says) is clean-ness.
And how is your strange reliance on Hebrew iconography any different from kabbalistic dabbling, devoid of any useful Biblical support? Paul did not describe the iconography of YHWH to prove that Jesus was the Christ; he used Scripture. Are you, a creationist, starting to feel that Scripture (which is first and foremost comprehensible to every tribe and tongue - otherwise shouldn't Wycliffe stop training translators and start training instructors in Hebrew and Greek?) and its words are not enough for you? Poor thing.
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
Linear Mode
