100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: "Aggressive spiritual predators." | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
A single word translated wrong can change everything. Not only that, but in the original Hebrew written language single words had multiple meanings anyway. So given any ancient Hebrew text there are actually quite many different interpretations that would be "valid interpretations" in terms of the vague and abstract meanings that these Hebrew words could represent. Therefore, the result of any interpretations, translations, or transcriptions, would be highly dependent upon the personal interpretations of the the interpreter. To believe that modern English numbered verses should be taken literally as verbatim statements, is totally unrealistic IMHO. Therefore to even post or print a numbered verse from these English texts and proclaim that these word should be taken as the verbatim directives and desires of some God, is, well,.... unrealistic IMHO. Placing faith in the idea that those verses are the verbatim instructions of some God, is itself a faith-based belief. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden..." This is actually saying that the voice is doing the walking. " in the cool of the day..." The voice was walking in the cool of the day. "and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. " And the plot thickens..... they assumed that the voice they heard was God so they hid. thats one interpretation but it makes more sense that adam and eve, who were in the garden, were being referred to as 'walking' in the garden |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 11/19/11 01:02 PM
|
|
"And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden..." This is actually saying that the voice is doing the walking. " in the cool of the day..." The voice was walking in the cool of the day. "and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. " And the plot thickens..... they assumed that the voice they heard was God so they hid. thats one interpretation but it makes more sense that adam and eve, who were in the garden, were being referred to as 'walking' in the garden msharmony, It is not "interpretation" I am talking about. I am talking about sentence structure and what it actually means as written. Yes to people with common sense, in this case, that is what it is probably supposed to mean. BUT in English, that is NOT what it says. That is why I showed how I would have written it correctly in English. "walking in the garden" Is a prepositional phrase. (walking is not the verb in this sentence.) "They" is the subject and "heard" is the verb. The sentence is incorrect English. If you start trying to guess what a sentence means, ignoring the sentence structure then you will be getting into a lot of wrong interpretations. I am strictly talking about sentence structure here, not about what a human can assume from their common sense. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden..." This is actually saying that the voice is doing the walking. " in the cool of the day..." The voice was walking in the cool of the day. "and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. " And the plot thickens..... they assumed that the voice they heard was God so they hid. thats one interpretation but it makes more sense that adam and eve, who were in the garden, were being referred to as 'walking' in the garden msharmony, It is not "interpretation" I am talking about. I am talking about sentence structure and what it actually means as written. Yes to people with common sense, in this case, that is what it is probably supposed to mean. BUT in English, that is NOT what it says. That is why I showed how I would have written it correctly in English. "walking in the garden" Is a prepositional phrase. (walking is not the verb in this sentence.) "They" is the subject and "heard" is the verb. The sentence is incorrect English. If you start trying to guess what a sentence means, ignoring the sentence structure then you will be getting into a lot of wrong interpretations. I am strictly talking about sentence structure here, not about what a human can assume from their common sense. this is true, but because such errors are so easily made with compound sentences it usually dictates reviewing the context and figuring out what makes sens in this case Walking has several nouns it could refer to ( a noun does not have to have only one verb in a complex sentence) it could refer to adam and eve, to the voice of God, or to God himself,,,,as is indicated in the NIV Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden..." This is actually saying that the voice is doing the walking. " in the cool of the day..." The voice was walking in the cool of the day. "and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. " And the plot thickens..... they assumed that the voice they heard was God so they hid. thats one interpretation but it makes more sense that adam and eve, who were in the garden, were being referred to as 'walking' in the garden msharmony, It is not "interpretation" I am talking about. I am talking about sentence structure and what it actually means as written. Yes to people with common sense, in this case, that is what it is probably supposed to mean. BUT in English, that is NOT what it says. That is why I showed how I would have written it correctly in English. "walking in the garden" Is a prepositional phrase. (walking is not the verb in this sentence.) "They" is the subject and "heard" is the verb. The sentence is incorrect English. If you start trying to guess what a sentence means, ignoring the sentence structure then you will be getting into a lot of wrong interpretations. I am strictly talking about sentence structure here, not about what a human can assume from their common sense. this is true, but because such errors are so easily made with compound sentences it usually dictates reviewing the context and figuring out what makes sens in this case Walking has several nouns it could refer to ( a noun does not have to have only one verb in a complex sentence) it could refer to adam and eve, to the voice of God, or to God himself,,,,as is indicated in the NIV Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?” Im sorry, I couldnt resist! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
msharmony, It is not "interpretation" I am talking about. I am talking about sentence structure and what it actually means as written. Yes to people with common sense, in this case, that is what it is probably supposed to mean. BUT in English, that is NOT what it says. That is why I showed how I would have written it correctly in English. "walking in the garden" Is a prepositional phrase. (walking is not the verb in this sentence.) "They" is the subject and "heard" is the verb. The sentence is incorrect English. If you start trying to guess what a sentence means, ignoring the sentence structure then you will be getting into a lot of wrong interpretations. I am strictly talking about sentence structure here, not about what a human can assume from their common sense. Exactly, Is the Bible supposed to be the "Verbatim Word of God", or is it supposed to be the "Common sense impressions of mortal men"? This is an extremely deep and profound question truly. Because if it's just the "common sense impressions of mortal men", then the value of the biblical "teaches" is totally dependent upon the "Common Sense" of the reader. That's hardly a doctrine that could be said to be 'guiding' anyone who instilling them with good moral values, if they need to conclude things based on their own "common sense". If they are going to just live their lives on what makes "common sense" to them, then they wouldn't need a book. ~~~~ This type of observation comes up clearly when associated with people such as Hitler (or other people who have taken harsh and violent interpretations of the Bible). As an example, the Old Testament teaches us that God has directed us to seek out and kill heathens (i.e. people who don't believe in the Biblical God). Thus anyone who rejects the Bible is a "Heathen". Hitler, as a Christian, could claim that the Jews reject Jesus, which is the act of a heathen. Thus they should be exterminated according to the teachings of the Biblical God. But way, Jesus taught love, peace, and not to judge! Another Christian might claim. But then Hitler says, "But Jesus also said that he did not come to change the law and that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law". Well, duh? The original LAW was the God commanded his followers to KILL HEATHENS, thus common sense in Hitler's view is that Jews must be killed since they are clearly heathens for not believing in Jesus the only begotten son of God. ~~~~~ So who's 'common sense' do we go by? Yes, it's true that high moral people will argue, "Well, gee whiz any sane moral person can see that what Hitler was doing was wrong!" Well duh? If they feel that killing heathens is obviously 'wrong' then clearly they must also think that the God of the Old Testament was 'wrong'. Common sense tells us that. See where it becomes a total can of worms? Trying to bring the concept of "common sense" into the biblical stories quickly runs into huge paradoxes. If killing heathen was 'wrong' for Hitler, then it must have also been wrong for God to direct people to do that in the Old Testament as well. We can't very well have the cake and eat it too. ~~~~ So arguments for "common sense" interpretations quickly sink into the quicksands of paradox. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I thought was funny, Roberta since I went through treatment was when Jesus answered the question with a question. One of the things my counselor told me was not to try to con a con. I couldn't help to think of that when a Jew is trying to Jew a Jew. See Jesus went to the temple until he was 12. He amazed his teachers. I think he may of been a child prodigy but that is just my interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
luv2roknroll
on
Sat 11/19/11 02:43 PM
|
|
What I thought was funny, Roberta since I went through treatment was when Jesus answered the question with a question. One of the things my counselor told me was not to try to con a con. I couldn't help to think of that when a Jew is trying to Jew a Jew. See Jesus went to the temple until he was 12. He amazed his teachers. I think he may of been a child prodigy but that is just my interpretation. Want an apple? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the labels that Jesus had was Rabbi and if you know notice that takes us back to the opening statement that Jeanie gave. Its the original argument almost. When I took the New Testament course in college the instructor tried to show how Jesus was a rebel. Herod had all the male children of a certain age killed. In the Old Testament the same thing had been tried with Moses. Many people were curious who Jesus was in the New Testament. A lot of people were asking questions of Jesus and wanted to know his identity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah. I used to have an apple but I guess I just got used to this pc. What I would like to design is a golden delicious. I am not saying that the macintosh is not a good one but I would like to improve on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bar Mitzvah (Hebrew: בר מצוה) and Bat Mitzvah (Hebrew: בת מצוה) are Jewish coming of age rituals. According to Jewish law, when Jewish boys reach 13, they become responsible for their actions and become a Bar Mitzvah (plural: B'nai Mitzvah). The age for girls is 12. In addition to being considered responsible for their actions from a religious perspective, B'nai mitzvah may be counted towards a minyan (prayer quorum) and may lead prayer and other religious services in the family and the community. The age of B'nai Mitzvah was selected because it roughly coincides with physical puberty. Prior to a child reaching Bar or Bat Mitzvah, the child's parents hold the responsibility for the child's actions. After this age, children bear their own responsibility for Jewish ritual law, tradition, and ethics and are privileged to participate in all areas of Jewish community life.
Jesus left the temple at 12. Hmmm. Never trust anyone over 13. What a rebel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Luke 2:39-52
[39] When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. [40] And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him. [41] Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. [42] When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to the custom. [43] After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. [44] Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. [45] When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. [46] After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. [47] Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. [48] When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you." [49] "Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?" [50] But they did not understand what he was saying to them. [51] Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. [52] And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden..." This is actually saying that the voice is doing the walking. " in the cool of the day..." The voice was walking in the cool of the day. "and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. " And the plot thickens..... they assumed that the voice they heard was God so they hid. thats one interpretation but it makes more sense that adam and eve, who were in the garden, were being referred to as 'walking' in the garden msharmony, It is not "interpretation" I am talking about. I am talking about sentence structure and what it actually means as written. Yes to people with common sense, in this case, that is what it is probably supposed to mean. BUT in English, that is NOT what it says. That is why I showed how I would have written it correctly in English. "walking in the garden" Is a prepositional phrase. (walking is not the verb in this sentence.) "They" is the subject and "heard" is the verb. The sentence is incorrect English. If you start trying to guess what a sentence means, ignoring the sentence structure then you will be getting into a lot of wrong interpretations. I am strictly talking about sentence structure here, not about what a human can assume from their common sense. this is true, but because such errors are so easily made with compound sentences it usually dictates reviewing the context and figuring out what makes sens in this case Walking has several nouns it could refer to ( a noun does not have to have only one verb in a complex sentence) it could refer to adam and eve, to the voice of God, or to God himself,,,,as is indicated in the NIV Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?” Im sorry, I couldnt resist! you know, thats funny, I always wondered where the original idea of the 'fruit' being an apple came from I think its related to how apples are represented as being a teachers treat, and keeping doctors away,, very early on, apples were apparently a highly honored fruit,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"as when Jesus answered the question with a question. One of the things my counselor told me was not to try to con a con. I couldn't help to think of that when a Jew is trying to Jew a Jew."
That's funny. I told a Yugo atheist of Christian origin friend of mine this story: I had a nice little answering machine that died. I took it around the pawn shops, nobody gave me money. I wound up in an Arab's shop. He took the machine, and promised to give me ten dollars after he sold it, although I wanted to see twenty on the spot. I handed it over. I kept walking back to the store, and the unit, still in its box, was in the window. On my third visit (every time I checked, I talked to the shop owner, too), I somehow convinced him to give me some money. He gave me a five dollar bill, as that was already the smallest paper currency in Canada. I went home, and after I told this to the Yugo friend (we were both non-denominational, non religious, non racists, and non-discriminatory) started to laugh aloud, and said, "Andrew, NOBODY can swindle an Arab merchant, absolutely nobody. Only a Hungarian Jew from Lipotvaros can do that." I had never felt any national pride for being Jewish, but from that day on, my heart warms when I think I am a Jew. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wux
on
Sun 11/20/11 02:29 PM
|
|
9 But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?” Ain't the Big Boss supposed to see everything? I think that's in the scriptures somewhere. He can't walk around either, coz he is everywhere at all times. I don't envy him for seeing everything. I saw my landlady, Mrs. Sptlwiwrvlynski, naked once. That sight would put the fear of god into God Himself. She wasn't completely naked: she had one of her knee-high stockings on, and her bedwarmer was on her left shoulder. Thonk god, i survived and escaped thus with my life from this very, very dangerous situation. But really, do you think you'd want to look at all skin diseases, whales going to rot on beaches, all worms eating carcasses and apples (!), and the sidewalks and culverts near all bars and pubs on all Friday nights a little after closing? What fun is being God? True Fact: He had no say in the matter. He is God, but He was never asked if He liked It or wanted to be It. Yeah, dis is a real douser. Or dozer. What if God does not like being Himself, and if that is true, what are His options of quitting? Maybe Nietzsche did not kill God. Maybe He is not dead at all. Maybe He quit, or is taking a sabbatical. Stranger things have been known to happen, you know. Such as this fat old little Hungarian Jew who is an atheist, explaining the Bible and the nature of God so they makes sense. And this little runt toting his own horn on top of everything else in his Hutzpah behaviour. Zheesh!! Daddy... If I could only see myself now!! I would surely quit this nonsense. But I came back to this very post and now I'm editing it the fourth time. Hey, little buddy... (fifth edit)... even God takes a break once in a while... why don't you (sixth) break your own leg, huh, little guy? Call me if you need help. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reminds me of the change from credit to cash around here. At a local store it says: "In God we trust. All others pay cash."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
msharmony, It is not "interpretation" I am talking about. I am talking about sentence structure and what it actually means as written. Yes to people with common sense, in this case, that is what it is probably supposed to mean. BUT in English, that is NOT what it says. That is why I showed how I would have written it correctly in English. "walking in the garden" Is a prepositional phrase. (walking is not the verb in this sentence.) "They" is the subject and "heard" is the verb. The sentence is incorrect English. If you start trying to guess what a sentence means, ignoring the sentence structure then you will be getting into a lot of wrong interpretations. I am strictly talking about sentence structure here, not about what a human can assume from their common sense. Exactly, Is the Bible supposed to be the "Verbatim Word of God", or is it supposed to be the "Common sense impressions of mortal men"? This is an extremely deep and profound question truly. Because if it's just the "common sense impressions of mortal men", then the value of the biblical "teaches" is totally dependent upon the "Common Sense" of the reader. That's hardly a doctrine that could be said to be 'guiding' anyone who instilling them with good moral values, if they need to conclude things based on their own "common sense". If they are going to just live their lives on what makes "common sense" to them, then they wouldn't need a book. ~~~~ This type of observation comes up clearly when associated with people such as Hitler (or other people who have taken harsh and violent interpretations of the Bible). As an example, the Old Testament teaches us that God has directed us to seek out and kill heathens (i.e. people who don't believe in the Biblical God). Thus anyone who rejects the Bible is a "Heathen". Hitler, as a Christian, could claim that the Jews reject Jesus, which is the act of a heathen. Thus they should be exterminated according to the teachings of the Biblical God. But way, Jesus taught love, peace, and not to judge! Another Christian might claim. But then Hitler says, "But Jesus also said that he did not come to change the law and that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law". Well, duh? The original LAW was the God commanded his followers to KILL HEATHENS, thus common sense in Hitler's view is that Jews must be killed since they are clearly heathens for not believing in Jesus the only begotten son of God. ~~~~~ So who's 'common sense' do we go by? Yes, it's true that high moral people will argue, "Well, gee whiz any sane moral person can see that what Hitler was doing was wrong!" Well duh? If they feel that killing heathens is obviously 'wrong' then clearly they must also think that the God of the Old Testament was 'wrong'. Common sense tells us that. See where it becomes a total can of worms? Trying to bring the concept of "common sense" into the biblical stories quickly runs into huge paradoxes. If killing heathen was 'wrong' for Hitler, then it must have also been wrong for God to direct people to do that in the Old Testament as well. We can't very well have the cake and eat it too. ~~~~ So arguments for "common sense" interpretations quickly sink into the quicksands of paradox. then lets replace 'common sense' with the term 'context' I think its a subject that was taught to me in my elementary school years as a part of reading and writing all writing has to have a CONTEXT,,and from that context we decide the meaning of the words,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nope.
Its just bad English. And by 'bad' I don't mean sloppy, I mean wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RKISIT
on
Mon 11/21/11 05:05 AM
|
|
Alot of whats going on is that nonbelievers see churches,billboards,TV stations and all this Jesus/God stuff everywhere.It's actually sickning to see so much of this and it's all folklore.Then when a nonbeliever does something it's spread all over the news and the Jesus Freaks well they freak out.How can you worship something that theres no evidence or proof they even actually existed.Believers say we nonbelievers are crazy,hmmm i think you believers need to look in the mirror you worship someone and something(God) that you have never seen or met.Also he/she/it has not ever done anything to show it exist.Who really is the crazy person?
Also i'd like to add that people who claim they were saved by God and made it through bad times cause of God or Jesus or David or Muhammed,what about all the others like you who didn't? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden..." This is actually saying that the voice is doing the walking. " in the cool of the day..." The voice was walking in the cool of the day. "and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. " And the plot thickens..... they assumed that the voice they heard was God so they hid. thats one interpretation but it makes more sense that adam and eve, who were in the garden, were being referred to as 'walking' in the garden msharmony, It is not "interpretation" I am talking about. I am talking about sentence structure and what it actually means as written. Yes to people with common sense, in this case, that is what it is probably supposed to mean. BUT in English, that is NOT what it says. That is why I showed how I would have written it correctly in English. "walking in the garden" Is a prepositional phrase. (walking is not the verb in this sentence.) "They" is the subject and "heard" is the verb. The sentence is incorrect English. If you start trying to guess what a sentence means, ignoring the sentence structure then you will be getting into a lot of wrong interpretations. I am strictly talking about sentence structure here, not about what a human can assume from their common sense. this is true, but because such errors are so easily made with compound sentences it usually dictates reviewing the context and figuring out what makes sens in this case Walking has several nouns it could refer to ( a noun does not have to have only one verb in a complex sentence) it could refer to adam and eve, to the voice of God, or to God himself,,,,as is indicated in the NIV Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?” Im sorry, I couldnt resist! you know, thats funny, I always wondered where the original idea of the 'fruit' being an apple came from I think its related to how apples are represented as being a teachers treat, and keeping doctors away,, very early on, apples were apparently a highly honored fruit,,  Ummmmmm, MsHarmony, its puff, puff, pass,  could you pass that now? JK
|
|
|
|
|
