PDA

View Full Version : Do you believe it necessry that a translator believes in Genesis account of creation?



rejoice44
Oct 4th 2012, 09:15 PM
1. Yes.

2. No.

3. No I do not, neither do I believe in the Genesis account of creation.

Walls
Oct 4th 2012, 09:26 PM
1. Yes I do.

2. No I do not.

3. No I do not, neither do I believe in the Genesis account of creation.

The question is valid of course, but a translator is one who has the command of languages, not revelation of scripture. The great King James Bible has the word "Easter" used for the word "Passah" because the translators went according to (their) revelation and not language. Maybe a better question would be, "should a Teacher of scripture believe in the Genesis account of creation?" After all, it is he that sets forth doctrine.

rejoice44
Oct 4th 2012, 09:37 PM
The question is valid of course, but a translator is one who has the command of languages, not revelation of scripture. The great King James Bible has the word "Easter" used for the word "Passah" because the translators went according to (their) revelation and not language. Maybe a better question would be, "should a Teacher of scripture believe in the Genesis account of creation?" After all, it is he that sets forth doctrine.

The question is worded correctly. You have the option of yes or no. I take it you voted no.

MarleVVLL
Oct 4th 2012, 10:50 PM
The question probes deeper than the one you asked. What if the Genesis account is not communicating what you think it is? Secondly, I believe the pronouns in the voting options are incorrect; should not they be "he/she should not" instead of "I do not"?

rejoice44
Oct 5th 2012, 12:06 AM
The question probes deeper than the one you asked. What if the Genesis account is not communicating what you think it is? Secondly, I believe the pronouns in the voting options are incorrect; should not they be "he/she should not" instead of "I do not"?

Why do you want to revise my question? The question is simple, and pertains to the beliefs of translators, and whether anyone feels it is relevant to the way a translator applies himself to his translation. It is not a hard question, nor do I have any desire to go deeper than the question itself.

Withoutfcf
Oct 5th 2012, 12:16 AM
The question probes deeper than the one you asked. What if the Genesis account is not communicating what you think it is? Secondly, I believe the pronouns in the voting options are incorrect; should not they be "he/she should not" instead of "I do not"?The question isn't hard to understand.

rejoice44
Oct 5th 2012, 12:58 AM
The question probes deeper than the one you asked. What if the Genesis account is not communicating what you think it is? Secondly, I believe the pronouns in the voting options are incorrect; should not they be "he/she should not" instead of "I do not"?

You are right, I did not word it correctly. It should have been 1. yes, 2. no, & 3. no, and I do not believe in the Genesis account myself.

crawfish
Oct 5th 2012, 01:16 AM
I have no idea what your personal theology is, but I suspect if you are going to reject a translation because of a theological disagreement with one or more of the translators you're going to have a tough time choosing.

boangry
Oct 5th 2012, 01:23 AM
Yes, yes I do...

rejoice44
Oct 5th 2012, 01:56 AM
I have no idea what your personal theology is, but I suspect if you are going to reject a translation because of a theological disagreement with one or more of the translators you're going to have a tough time choosing.

Does it matter if the translator is the editor of the translation committee?

crawfish
Oct 5th 2012, 04:00 AM
Does it matter if the translator is the editor of the translation committee?

I'm not concerned at all, as long as the translator is intent on creating an honest translation. I'd be more worried about a translator with an agenda, regardless of their beliefs.

Boo
Oct 5th 2012, 09:23 AM
I believe that a translator's task is to translate the words into what the foreign language phrases mean. The requirement for a translator is honesty, not theology. It should not matter what the translator believes in really, unless he is doing a paraphrase translation.

He does not have to agree with the content of those phrases in order to translate them - if it is to be ultimately and word-for-word translation. When that is done, nobody will actually know what is meant unless the translator knows the intent of the words. He does not have to agree with the teaching, but he has to pass it on honestly.

However, if it is to be a thought-for-thought translation, he has to understand the ideas behind the phrases. He has to know the thoughts in the work. He cannot do an accurate job without the understanding that comes with knowing the lesson being taught, or he'll screw it up. A simple word change can cause a flood of argument.

Many doctrines come about because people believe that they know the truth - regardless of what the sentence says.

rejoice44
Oct 5th 2012, 03:21 PM
I'm not concerned at all, as long as the translator is intent on creating an honest translation. I'd be more worried about a translator with an agenda, regardless of their beliefs.

If a person doesn't believe in the biblical account of Adam, they would have no probem with a translator who doesn't believe either. What amazes me is the number of heads of translation committees that don't believe in the Genesis account of Adam. If the head of the department of theology at, say Yale or Princeton, doesn't believe in the biblical account of Adam, then it is likely that the graduates from those institutions woudn't believe either.

crawfish
Oct 5th 2012, 05:42 PM
If a person doesn't believe in the biblical account of Adam, they would have no probem with a translator who doesn't believe either. What amazes me is the number of heads of translation committees that don't believe in the Genesis account of Adam. If the head of the department of theology at, say Yale or Princeton, doesn't believe in the biblical account of Adam, then it is likely that the graduates from those institutions woudn't believe either.

Which interpretation of the account of Adam should they have? Even among those who hold a young-earth view, there is some wide discrepancy in the details they believe. For instance: some believe in no death at all for any animal, some accept animal death.

rejoice44
Oct 5th 2012, 06:17 PM
Which interpretation of the account of Adam should they have? Even among those who hold a young-earth view, there is some wide discrepancy in the details they believe. For instance: some believe in no death at all for any animal, some accept animal death.

Why confuse the issue? The issue is whether one believes the words of Genesis. If you believe Adam had an ancestor you don't believe the bible. If you don't believe the bible you are an unbeliever and without faith.

Lily
Oct 5th 2012, 06:39 PM
I voted no. But that is assuming that by "Genesis account of creation" you mean a six day (24 hrs) creation.

I believe the Genesis account of creation, but I don't have the same understanding of the creation account that you do. That doesn't mean I don't believe the Bible, just as it doesn't mean you don't believe the Bible if you don't understand from scripture that when we take communion we aren't literally drinking Jesus blood and eating his flesh as some think we are.

It's troubling that so many Christians are so insistent on a literal 6 day creation and tell non-believers (and Christians) that they can't know Jesus, who died for them, if they don't believe in a literal 6 day creation.

rejoice44
Oct 5th 2012, 07:14 PM
I voted no. But that is assuming that by "Genesis account of creation" you mean a six day (24 hrs) creation.

I believe the Genesis account of creation, but I don't have the same understanding of the creation account that you do. That doesn't mean I don't believe the Bible, just as it doesn't mean you don't believe the Bible if you don't understand from scripture that when we take communion we aren't literally drinking Jesus blood and eating his flesh as some think we are.

It's troubling that so many Christians are so insistent on a literal 6 day creation and tell non-believers (and Christians) that they can't know Jesus, who died for them, if they don't believe in a literal 6 day creation.

The broad description is "whether you believe the words that you find in Genesis", narrowly it would be "evolution verses intelligent design". Do you believe that Adam had no ancestor, and that Eve was taken from a rib from Adam?

crawfish
Oct 5th 2012, 08:19 PM
Why confuse the issue? The issue is whether one believes the words of Genesis. If you believe Adam had an ancestor you don't believe the bible. If you don't believe the bible you are an unbeliever and without faith.

So, in the book of Job God says there are storehouses for hail and snow. If you think hail and snow form in the clouds, then you don't believe the bible. If you don't believe the bible you are an unbeliever and without faith.

boangry
Oct 5th 2012, 09:02 PM
So, in the book of Job God says there are storehouses for hail and snow. If you think hail and snow form in the clouds, then you don't believe the bible. If you don't believe the bible you are an unbeliever and without faith. lol, the context and desription of Job shows his understanding that God is the ultimate knowledge of the science of his creation, and mankind cant understand everything, He knows God understands the enviroment of the future period of Judgement and when it hails and snows causing death on a massive scale its becuase God knows how the enviroment and global warming will effect weather conditions, and there will be hail stored up for that day, that will form in the atmosphere and drop to earth. Im not even going to go into the fact there is water in the atmosphere all the time

Yet you believe the context and literal translation is God must have hail and snow already formed and reserved?(dont think you do) and you make this comparable to those who believe the Genesis account, keep twisting it if it makes you sleep easier...

rejoice44
Oct 5th 2012, 09:15 PM
So, in the book of Job God says there are storehouses for hail and snow. If you think hail and snow form in the clouds, then you don't believe the bible. If you don't believe the bible you are an unbeliever and without faith.

I don't have to understand every word, every line, every verse. As time goes by God reveals to me those things that I did not understand in the past. I have faith that God's Word is true. I believe.

In regards to Job my translation doesn't read as yours does. My translations says treasure, and in Deuteronomy 28:12, "The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow ."

crawfish
Oct 5th 2012, 09:43 PM
lol, the context and desription of Job shows his understanding that God is the ultimate knowledge of the science of his creation, and mankind cant understand everything, He knows God understands the enviroment of the future period of Judgement and when it hails and snows causing death on a massive scale its becuase God knows how the enviroment and global warming will effect weather conditions, and there will be hail stored up for that day, that will form in the atmosphere and drop to earth. Im not even going to go into the fact there is water in the atmosphere all the time

Yet you believe the context and literal translation is God must have hail and snow already formed and reserved?(dont think you do) and you make this comparable to those who believe the Genesis account, keep twisting it if it makes you sleep easier...

Ah yes, symbolism. What other parts of the bible can I get away with not believing?

rejoice44
Oct 5th 2012, 11:44 PM
Ah yes, symbolism. What other parts of the bible can I get away with not believing?

You don't have to believe the bible. No one is telling you that you have to. The choice is yours; it is freewill.

decrumpit
Oct 6th 2012, 12:53 AM
You don't have to believe the bible. No one is telling you that you have to. The choice is yours; it is freewill.

Crawfish is making a point about context and authorial intent. He is also trying to show that there aren't only two views of Genesis (young earth vs. atheist rejection).

I support a non-literal reading of certain aspects of Genesis because it is both consistent with what the author was trying to convey, the New Testament, and the rest of scripture. It doesn't wed scripture to science, which is highly erratic and often proved wrong. I voted that a translator should believe the Genesis account, but the hidden assumption is that the Genesis account is young earth creation. I don't believe this assumption.

rejoice44
Oct 6th 2012, 01:37 AM
Crawfish is making a point about context and authorial intent. He is also trying to show that there aren't only two views of Genesis (young earth vs. atheist rejection).

I support a non-literal reading of certain aspects of Genesis because it is both consistent with what the author was trying to convey, the New Testament, and the rest of scripture. It doesn't wed scripture to science, which is highly erratic and often proved wrong. I voted that a translator should believe the Genesis account, but the hidden assumption is that the Genesis account is young earth creation. I don't believe this assumption.

Do you both believe that Adam had no ancestors, and that Eve was formed from a rib of Adam?

Lily
Oct 6th 2012, 02:50 AM
The broad description is "whether you believe the words that you find in Genesis", narrowly it would be "evolution verses intelligent design". Do you believe that Adam had no ancestor, and that Eve was taken from a rib from Adam?

Short answer - No and no.

Was the serpent only a serpent as "the Genesis account" indicates? Should Eve have insisted to her offspring that they should be looking for a particular snake head to step on? If you don't think so, are you a faithless unbeliever?


Do you see that this isn't really about whether we believe in the literal interpretation. Because you don't always either. What you're really saying is, "if you don't believe what I believe is literal, then you're an unbeliever."

rejoice44
Oct 6th 2012, 03:32 AM
Short answer - No and no.

Was the serpent only a serpent as "the Genesis account" indicates? Should Eve have insisted to her offspring that they should be looking for a particular snake head to step on? If you don't think so, are you a faithless unbeliever?


Do you see that this isn't really about whether we believe in the literal interpretation. Because you don't always either. What you're really saying is, "if you don't believe what I believe is literal, then you're an unbeliever."

Do you suppose that the Devil would look like a man when he is always described as a beast, dragon, and serpent. No one knows what Satan looks like, nor does anyone have all the answers. I personally know that God is good, and that God doesn't lie. If God says he formed Adam and took a rib from Adam to form Eve, then it is true. If it is not true that the first Adam brought sin into the world and condemned the world, then it is not true that the last Adam, Jesus Christ will save the world. You can't pick and choose what part of the Word you wish to believe. If you don't believe the Genesis account, then have the courage to accept that the rest of the bible must also be a lie. There will be no fence sitters in the Kingdom of God.

rejoice44
Oct 6th 2012, 03:57 AM
I believe the Genesis account of creation, but I don't have the same understanding of the creation account that you do. That doesn't mean I don't believe the Bible, just as it doesn't mean you don't believe the Bible if you don't understand from scripture that when we take communion we aren't literally drinking Jesus blood and eating his flesh as some think we are.

It should be clear to everyone what Jesus was saying when he said, take "eat, this is my body". It was the Passover meal, and they were to eat every bit of the Lamb. Jesus was saying, I am the Lamb of God. They all understood his meaning, or at the least they should have.

Exodus 12:8 And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; [and] with bitter [herbs] they shall eat it.

Lily
Oct 6th 2012, 04:07 AM
Genesis says a serpent deceived Adam and Eve and that God told it it would crawl on its belly forever. Revelation calls satan, the devil, a serpent/dragon and also says that the serpent will be bound. Yet we understand that it's not literal serpents that tempt us. I have never had a snake come and tell me I should lie about something or steal something. Never.

Just a few verses after God condemns the serpent we read of the "generations of Adam":

Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.


In what sense would you say scripture is calling Jesus Adam in 1 Cor 15:45? Ifs it's not in the sense that Jesus is the last man (we know many men have been born since) then should we assume it means Adam had no ancestors?

Again... I believe the Genesis account. I don't believe your account of it, though, and you don't believe mine. I offer my thoughts on this in all humility, and with careful, prayerful, study and consideration. We will all be held accountable for what we say and teach to believers and unbelievers alike.

Lily
Oct 6th 2012, 04:36 AM
It should be clear to everyone what Jesus was saying when he said, take "eat, this is my body". It was the Passover meal, and they were to eat every bit of the Lamb. Jesus was saying, I am the Lamb of God. They all understood his meaning, or at the least they should have.

Exodus 12:8 And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; [and] with bitter [herbs] they shall eat it.

And yet millions of Christians all over the world understand it literally and believe that when they take communion the wafers become Jesus flesh and the wine/juice becomes his blood.

Are those of us who don't see it the way they do faithless?

I believe God created the heavens and the earth and all they contain, that we are sinners and condemned already, that Jesus is the Son of God, fully human and fully divine, that he died on the cross, God raised him, and he asended to heaven, thereby reconciling all the sinners who believe on him to God. How he created everything, whether instantaneously or over a long period of time, is of no consequence to our faith as far as I can tell.

rejoice44
Oct 6th 2012, 11:46 AM
Genesis says a serpent deceived Adam and Eve and that God told it it would crawl on its belly forever. Revelation calls satan, the devil, a serpent/dragon and also says that the serpent will be bound. Yet we understand that it's not literal serpents that tempt us. I have never had a snake come and tell me I should lie about something or steal something. Never.

Just a few verses after God condemns the serpent we read of the "generations of Adam":

Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.


In what sense would you say scripture is calling Jesus Adam in 1 Cor 15:45? Ifs it's not in the sense that Jesus is the last man (we know many men have been born since) then should we assume it means Adam had no ancestors?

Again... I believe the Genesis account. I don't believe your account of it, though, and you don't believe mine. I offer my thoughts on this in all humility, and with careful, prayerful, study and consideration. We will all be held accountable for what we say and teach to believers and unbelievers alike.

There were only two Adams that descended from God, all mankind descended from Adam. This seems quite clear and understandable. We get our life from man, which started with the first Adam, but the two Adams got their life from God. This is why, when we are born a second time, we are called the sons of God, because the Holy Spirit breathes life into us.

Men born after Jesus were not born of the Holy Spirit, unless they become born again.

rejoice44
Oct 6th 2012, 12:09 PM
And yet millions of Christians all over the world understand it literally and believe that when they take communion the wafers become Jesus flesh and the wine/juice becomes his blood.

Are those of us who don't see it the way they do faithless?

Where is the unbelief in either group? There doesn't appear to be any unbelief in either group. But you don't believe Adam was the first man, and that is unbelief. Who taught you this?


I believe God created the heavens and the earth and all they contain, that we are sinners and condemned already, that Jesus is the Son of God, fully human and fully divine, that he died on the cross, God raised him, and he asended to heaven, thereby reconciling all the sinners who believe on him to God. How he created everything, whether instantaneously or over a long period of time, is of no consequence to our faith as far as I can tell.

We all have different measures of faith and only the individual and God knows what their relationship is. I am not saying you are unsaved, and it isn't for me to judge you in that matter.

You cannot reconcile evolution and Genesis. Eve was taken from the rib of Adam, and if you don't believe that, you make God a liar.

Boo
Oct 6th 2012, 12:41 PM
Wow! Some really silly accusations going on here.

Young Earth and Evolution are not the only two choices. There is also Old Earth, Young Creation to deal with.

I would think that we should dump our personal "may way or the highway" thinking that is cropping up in here.

I do, however, agree that we must believe the scriptures. Any way of thinking that claims that the bible is not true IS a problem. There are blank spots with unanswered questions. We should not make our own answers and accuse those who don't have those same answers as being wrong.

rejoice44
Oct 6th 2012, 01:24 PM
Wow! Some really silly accusations going on here.

Rather than a broad brush, why not specifics?


Young Earth and Evolution are not the only two choices. There is also Old Earth, Young Creation to deal with.

Young and old is a relative term in this case. While Adam was not created a baby to which we would apply the term young, Adam was newly created.


I would think that we should dump our personal "may way or the highway" thinking that is cropping up in here.

Isn't it really God's thinking that counts, and isn't this really about whether we believe what God's says? If you have to add words to fill in what you have determined to be missing blanks, are you not adding to the Word? The problem is evolution and the bible are not compatible, at least the evolution of Darwin, which is still being taught, and those that go about trying to reconcile the two have to alter the meanings of the words of the bible.


I do, however, agree that we must believe the scriptures. Any way of thinking that claims that the bible is not true IS a problem. There are blank spots with unanswered questions. We should not make our own answers and accuse those who don't have those same answers as being wrong.

Do you believe Adam decended through evolution, or do you believe he truly was the first man? And do you believe Eve was formed from a rib of Adam's?

Boo
Oct 6th 2012, 01:33 PM
Evolution is hogwash.

I believe what the bible says. The problem is that other people who claim to also believe what the bible says don't agree with me on what the bible says.

Calling someone an "unbeliever" because they don't hold our view as to the meaning of a chapter is "my way or the highway" thinking.

rejoice44
Oct 6th 2012, 01:48 PM
Evolution is hogwash.

I believe what the bible says. The problem is that other people who claim to also believe what the bible says don't agree with me on what the bible says.

Does that mean you believe Eve was taken from a rib from Adam? Just wanted to clarify.


Calling someone an "unbeliever" because they don't hold our view as to the meaning of a chapter is "my way or the highway" thinking.

Believing whether Adam was the first man, or not, is non-negotiable as pertainting to your belief in the bible. Anyone who does not believe that Adam was the first man, and that Eve was taken from his rib is an unbeliever. You cannot pick and choose what you wish to believe. Either the bible is true, or it is not true, there is no grey area.

Boo
Oct 6th 2012, 01:57 PM
Does that mean you believe Eve was taken from a rib from Adam? Just wanted to clarify.

Believing whether Adam was the first man, or not, is non-negotiable as pertainting to your belief in the bible. Anyone who does not believe that Adam was the first man, and that Eve was taken from his rib is an unbeliever. You cannot pick and choose what you wish to believe. Either the bible is true, or it is not true, there is no grey area.

OK. I think you are in an argument with someone other than me.

I know that Adam was the first man. I know that Eve was made for Adam.

I also know that the bible does not say WHEN the heavens and the Earth were created, except to say "in the beginning."

rejoice44
Oct 6th 2012, 02:17 PM
I know that Adam was the first man. I know that Eve was made for Adam.

I apologize for asking this over again, but it is done for clarification. Do you believe that Eve was formed from the rib of Adam?

Vhayes
Oct 6th 2012, 03:44 PM
I haven't read this thread all the way through, just a few posts here and there. My thought about the whole thing?

* A translator should be very, very fluent in the languages, understanding nuances and colloquialisms.
* The Holy Spirit should be the instructor in the reading of those words after the translation is completed.

Here's the deal - the best translation in the world is useless to one who is not guided by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit can take the worst translation of all times and use it for instruction.

What a translator believes or doesn't believe matters not at all to the Holy Spirit.

rejoice44
Oct 6th 2012, 04:16 PM
I haven't read this thread all the way through, just a few posts here and there. My thought about the whole thing?

* A translator should be very, very fluent in the languages, understanding nuances and colloquialisms.
* The Holy Spirit should be the instructor in the reading of those words after the translation is completed.

Here's the deal - the best translation in the world is useless to one who is not guided by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit can take the worst translation of all times and use it for instruction.

What a translator believes or doesn't believe matters not at all to the Holy Spirit.

Your whole theory is based on the intelligence of the translator, but in reality none of them agree, and logically their bias comes into play. As was the case with the UBS/NA committee that gave us the current Greek Text, that is in vogue today, they voted, A, B, C, or D, as to what was the correct reading. When they voted their bias comes into play. I would prefer the bias of the translator whose bias is predicated on truth. But then again, I would prefer that once a translation was done, that it would be worthy to stand by itself as the Word of God.

decrumpit
Oct 6th 2012, 04:40 PM
Do you both believe that Adam had no ancestors, and that Eve was formed from a rib of Adam?

I believe that Adam is the father of humanity and the first man. The Bible doesn't say that Adam had no ancestors. So what does the text mean? If God did create Adam by the process of evolution then I won't scream in God's face "This doesn't conform to my theological system!". To say that Adam is the first man might mean a lot of things. All I am committed to is the text itself. Anything else is speculation and I won't divide the body of Christ over it.

You're reading the text through a pre-conceived theological system and using that as your starting point for right and wrong. I would encourage you to try and do the opposite.


You cannot reconcile evolution and Genesis. Eve was taken from the rib of Adam, and if you don't believe that, you make God a liar.

So you've set some arbitrary standards and decided that anyone who doesn't believe this passage literally is a heretic, liar, unbeliever, etc.

Are you hear to discuss, or are you here to tell? Based on your standards, both John Calvin (who said Genesis does not accurately describe cosmology) and CS Lewis (who believed in theistic evolution) are dangerous liars out to deceive the flock.

Boo
Oct 6th 2012, 06:48 PM
I apologize for asking this over again, but it is done for clarification. Do you believe that Eve was formed from the rib of Adam?


Genesis 2:21-24 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Of course, since it happened after he was made, his genes still called for an equal number of ribs, so we are all born now without one missing. Makes sense to me.

Vhayes
Oct 6th 2012, 07:20 PM
Your whole theory is based on the intelligence of the translator, but in reality none of them agree, and logically their bias comes into play. As was the case with the UBS/NA committee that gave us the current Greek Text, that is in vogue today, they voted, A, B, C, or D, as to what was the correct reading. When they voted their bias comes into play. I would prefer the bias of the translator whose bias is predicated on truth. But then again, I would prefer that once a translation was done, that it would be worthy to stand by itself as the Word of God.Actually, no. My entire premise is that the Holy Spirit is an able teacher.

rejoice44
Oct 6th 2012, 08:19 PM
You're reading the text through a pre-conceived theological system and using that as your starting point for right and wrong. I would encourage you to try and do the opposite.

The preconceived ideas that I have are that God does not lie.


So you've set some arbitrary standards and decided that anyone who doesn't believe this passage literally is a heretic, liar, unbeliever, etc.

What is truth? Is it what God says, or is it what we try and read inbetween the lines.


Are you hear to discuss, or are you here to tell? Based on your standards, both John Calvin (who said Genesis does not accurately describe cosmology) and CS Lewis (who believed in theistic evolution) are dangerous liars out to deceive the flock.

There is no apology forthcoming for believing the "Word" in its simplistic form, simple enough for even a fifth grader. I keep hearing people say, "Hath God really said"?

rejoice44
Oct 6th 2012, 08:21 PM
Actually, no. My entire premise is that the Holy Spirit is an able teacher.

There is no argument "that the Holy Spirit is an able teacher. We were discussing translators beliefs. Is it your belief that the Holy Spirit leads the translators?

tango
Oct 6th 2012, 11:14 PM
1. Yes.

2. No.

3. No I do not, neither do I believe in the Genesis account of creation.

I voted no.

It is important that a translator be willing to translate what the text says regardless of what we think it should say.

To take a silly example (and I use a silly example so we don't get bogged down in arguments over what Scripture really says) - if the original text was mistranslated right from the beginning and really said "and on the third day God created the Loch Ness Monster, and Bigfoot, and the abominable snowman, and the weird black creatures that look like panthers and mysteriously appear in urban areas" and "on the seventh day God put his feet up and enjoyed a large glass of black cherry flavour Kool Aid" then I'd rather a translator produced an English text that referred to the weird creatures and the Kool-Aid.

Scruffy Kid
Oct 7th 2012, 12:50 AM
(1) An important point about translation to bear in mind




The thread, as presented in the original post, is about translation, and seems to be about the translation of Genesis, and the nature of Adam. True, other issues keep coming up and may have been present from the start of the thread. However, I'd like to go back to the problem of translation, as a place to start.


Verses about people, and about humanity as a whole




In order to think about some of the issues in translating the OT, we need to look at the usage in some verses. I have garnered these from throughout the Hebrew Bible, but I worked from the back forward, and got tired halfway through!

I will use the King James throughout for convenience in using Blue Letter Bible, where I found these verses, and also because I think there may be less controversy about that translation.


Micah 6:8 (KJV) says: He hath shewed thee, O man, what good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

Zephaniah 1:3 says (KJV): I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumblingblocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the LORD.

Zechariah (KJV) 9:1 says: The burden of the word of the LORD in the land of Hadrach, and Damascus shall be the rest thereof: when the eyes of man, as of all the tribes of Israel, shall be toward the LORD.

Malachi (KJV) 3:8 says: Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.

Hosea (KJV) 9:12 says: Though they bring up their children, yet will I bereave them, that there shall not be a man left: yea, woe also to them when I depart from them!

Daniel 8:16 (KJV*) says: And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this [one] to understand the vision.

Ezekiel 39:15 (KJV) says: And the passengers that pass through the land, when any seeth a man's bone, then shall he set up a sign by it, till the buriers have buried it in the valley of Hamongog.

Jeremiah 4:25 (KJV) says: I beheld, and, lo, there was no man , and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

Jeremiah 10:14 (KJV) says: Every man is brutish in his knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them.

Jeremiah 21:6 (KJV) says: And I will smite the inhabitants of this city, both man and beast: they shall die of a great pestilence.

Ecclesiastes 12:13 (KJV) says: Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

Isaiah (KJV) 17:7 says: At that day shall a man look to his Maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the Holy One of Israel.

Isaiah (KJV) 38:11 says: I said, I shall not see the LORD, even the LORD, in the land of the living: I shall behold man 120 no more with the inhabitants of the world.

Isaiah (KJV) 45:12 says: I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

Isaiah 58: (KJV) says: Is it such a fast that I have chosen? a day for a man to afflict his soul? Is it to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the LORD?

Proverbs 19:3 (KJV) says: The foolishness of man perverteth his way: and his heart fretteth against the LORD.

Psalm 104:13 (KJV) says: He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth;

Psalm 118:6 says: The LORD is on my side; I will not fear: what can man do unto me?

The crucial point is that in each of these verses the word "man" is not some separate word for "man" but simply the word "adam" ("אָדָם"). These verses all use the word ("אָדָם"), "adam" to mean humanity, humankind, a human being, and things like that. And -- except for about 5 verses with specialized usage (2:23-24 (which is explicitly talking about male and female) and 4:1 (which describes Cain as a male child) and 4:23 (which talks about Lamach killing other guys), 9:5 (again talking about murder) and 6:9 (describing Noah as a just man) -- every other use of the word "man" in Genesis 1-12 (KJV) is a translation of the word "adam" ("אָדָם").


How is "אָדָם" ("adam") to be translated?


Importantly, Genesis 6:5 says (KJV) (It is God speaking in the verse) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

And notably, Genesis 1:26-17 (KJV) says And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

These are but a few of the verses, in which "אָדָם" ("adam" or "adawm") is translated "man". We can readily see, what lexicons also tell us, that the range of meaning for "אָדָם" ("adam") includes "a man", "a human being", "man", "humankind" or "humanity", as well as "Adam, the first man"

There is no significant differentiation, in the text, between "Adam" and "humanity" or "a human being" or "a man". Thus when Genesis 1:26-27 says "God created adam in his own image ... male and female" clearly what is being said is that "God created humanity in his own image, ... male and female"


The problem of translation


In this regard, no existing translation (that I'm aware of) is adequate. In fact, it is hard to imagine how one could adequately translate the text. One needs an explanation, as well as a translation.

However, what is very clear is that the word "אָדָם" which in every translation I know of is in most verses translated "man" or "a man" -- meaning "humanity" or "human beings" OR "a human being" -- is the same Hebrew word which is translated "Adam" in other verses.

While there can be thoughtful discussion about what the text means in these various contexts, or in structuring itself so that this one word is used in these various ways, it is evident that "adam" stands not only for one particular man, or historical person, but also for humanity as a whole.

Scruffy Kid
Oct 7th 2012, 01:05 AM
(2) "Man" ("אָדָם"), "adam") and "Ground" ("adamah")

In considering the Genesis 2-3 (or Gen. 2-3-4, or Gen. 1-4 or Gen. 1-11) text, it is also important to understand the relation between the Hebrew word used for "man" or "Adam" ("adam" transliterating "אָדָם") and the Hebrew word used for "ground" ("adamah").

The word "ground" comes up frequently in the Genesis 2-3 account.

At 2:5 we're told that "there was not yet a man ("adam") to till the ground ("adamah"). At 2:6 we're told a mist watered "the whole face of the ground ("adamah"). At 2:7 we're told that "God formed man ("adam") of the dust of the ground ("adamah")" and breathed the breath of life into us. At 2:9 we're told that the trees grew out of the ground "adamah"); and at 2:19 that God "formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air out of the ground ("adamah") and brought them to" man, or adam, (adam") to see what he would call them.

Then, after the fall, we're told (at 3:17-19) that "Unto Adam ("adam": Adam or humanity) he said, ... cursed is the ground ("adamah") because of you. In sorrow shall you eat of it all the days of your life. Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee, and ... in the sweat of thy face, shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the ground ("adamah") for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art and to dust thou shalt return."

Finally in 4 we are told that Cain tilled the ground ("adamah") (4:2, 4:3) and that after Cain kills Abel God says (4"11-14) "thy brother's blood crieth to me from the ground ("adamah") and now thou art cursed from the earth ("adamah", inconsistently rendered "earth" in the KJV) which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand. When thou tillest the ground ("adamah") it shall not ... yield unto thee her strength and a fugitive and vagabond shalt thou be in the earth ("the land", "eretz"). Cain laments to God "Behold thou has driven me out this day from the face of the earth (again properly "ground", "adamah"), and from thy face shall I be hid, ... and every one that findeth me shall slay me."

It seems to me plain that the by-play between the word "אָדָם" ("adam": humanity, or Adam) and the word "
אֲדָמָה
" ("adamah": ground) cannot be accidental. That the concurrance must be deliberate is not just a feature of the similarity of the two words, but of the great importance that is placed upon the ground as the source of plants and animals and humanity, upon the emphasis given to the role of humanity in tending and dressing the ground, and upon the nature of the curse, both on humanity generally, or on Adam -- as bringing forth good fruits only with toil and sweat, and bringing forth thorns and thistles easily -- and specifically on Cain, banished from the "face" of the ground as from the "face" of God, because "the ground" has "received his brother's blood from his hand."

(With respect to this last point, it seems that both "adam" and "adamah" are likely derived from a verb meaning "to be ruddy" (that is, red colored) which in turn derives from "dawm", the Hebrew word for "blood". Thus when the "adawmah" received the "dawm" of one human being shed by another, the emphasis upon the relationship of blood to humanity and to the ground seems to be underscored.)

The significance of the words actually used to understanding the passages

When God says "cursed is the ground because of you" so that it brings forth fruit only with great labor, but bad stuff naturally, it is hard to suppose that what the text is trying to do is to explain the source of agricultural difficulties. Rather it seems to me that what is being said is that human nature -- very stuff of which humankind is formed -- has been messed up, so that human beings rather than bringing forth good things naturally (which is how God made us) now bring forth bad things naturally, and good things only with difficulty.

When God says that Cain is cursed from the face of the ground, He is saying, as I read it, that Cain has further alienated himself from his own nature, and also from humanity. Cain fears that, as well as being put away from the face of God, he is put away from the face of the ground -- from human contact -- because everyone will want to kill him.

Thus, when the text tells us that "adam" is taken from the ground -- as the plants and animals are -- and has been made to tend and keep it, I think that the main force of the text is that humanity has been placed in charge of the world and its creatures, to order and tend them, but primarily that we are responsible for cultivating our own own nature, the stuff of which we are made. This we failed to do, miserably, at the beginning.

The whole account, then, seems to me to have as much to do with the origins, purpose, and brokenness of humanity as with the individuals Adam and his wife.

As I understand it, God is here revealing to us the essential things we need to know about the nature of our life, its dependence upon God, our brokenness and rebelliousness and how that infects our very nature, and so on. These are revealed because they are essential truths which we will not properly understand without God's explicit instruction upon this point.


God made humanity, and we fell. That first fall has corrupted our very nature. It occurred through pride, disobedience, the temptation of the devil, rebellion, and lack of trust in God. It involved our trying to define ourselves, and to define what is right and wrong, rather than relying on God's will. Yes, I think that there were original human individuals who fell. But the early chapters of Genesis seem to be telling us about this in a way which is multi-layered, and requires careful reflection. It does not seem to me to be a detailed account of the mechanics of how God made us.


Note: I have been unable to get the post to accept the Hebrew "adamah", so I have mostly had to leave the Hebrew letters out. Sorry.

rejoice44
Oct 7th 2012, 03:26 AM
(2) "Man" ("אָדָם"), "adam") and "Ground" ("adamah")

In considering the Genesis 2-3 (or Gen. 2-3-4, or Gen. 1-4 or Gen. 1-11) text, it is also important to understand the relation between the Hebrew word used for "man" or "Adam" ("adam" transliterating "אָדָם") and the Hebrew word used for "ground" ("adamah").

The word "ground" comes up frequently in the Genesis 2-3 account.

At 2:5 we're told that "there was not yet a man ("adam") to till the ground ("adamah"). At 2:6 we're told a mist watered "the whole face of the ground ("adamah"). At 2:7 we're told that "God formed man ("adam") of the dust of the ground ("adamah")" and breathed the breath of life into us. At 2:9 we're told that the trees grew out of the ground "adamah"); and at 2:19 that God "formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air out of the ground ("adamah") and brought them to" man, or adam, (adam") to see what he would call them.

Then, after the fall, we're told (at 3:17-19) that "Unto Adam ("adam": Adam or humanity) he said, ... cursed is the ground ("adamah") because of you. In sorrow shall you eat of it all the days of your life. Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee, and ... in the sweat of thy face, shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the ground ("adamah") for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art and to dust thou shalt return."

Finally in 4 we are told that Cain tilled the ground ("adamah") (4:2, 4:3) and that after Cain kills Abel God says (4"11-14) "thy brother's blood crieth to me from the ground ("adamah") and now thou art cursed from the earth ("adamah", inconsistently rendered "earth" in the KJV) which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand. When thou tillest the ground ("adamah") it shall not ... yield unto thee her strength and a fugitive and vagabond shalt thou be in the earth ("the land", "eretz"). Cain laments to God "Behold thou has driven me out this day from the face of the earth (again properly "ground", "adamah"), and from thy face shall I be hid, ... and every one that findeth me shall slay me."

It seems to me plain that the by-play between the word "אָדָם" ("adam": humanity, or Adam) and the word "
אֲדָמָה
" ("adamah": ground) cannot be accidental. That the concurrance must be deliberate is not just a feature of the similarity of the two words, but of the great importance that is placed upon the ground as the source of plants and animals and humanity, upon the emphasis given to the role of humanity in tending and dressing the ground, and upon the nature of the curse, both on humanity generally, or on Adam -- as bringing forth good fruits only with toil and sweat, and bringing forth thorns and thistles easily -- and specifically on Cain, banished from the "face" of the ground as from the "face" of God, because "the ground" has "received his brother's blood from his hand."

(With respect to this last point, it seems that both "adam" and "adamah" are likely derived from a verb meaning "to be ruddy" (that is, red colored) which in turn derives from "dawm", the Hebrew word for "blood". Thus when the "adawmah" received the "dawm" of one human being shed by another, the emphasis upon the relationship of blood to humanity and to the ground seems to be underscored.)

The significance of the words actually used to understanding the passages

When God says "cursed is the ground because of you" so that it brings forth fruit only with great labor, but bad stuff naturally, it is hard to suppose that what the text is trying to do is to explain the source of agricultural difficulties. Rather it seems to me that what is being said is that human nature -- very stuff of which humankind is formed -- has been messed up, so that human beings rather than bringing forth good things naturally (which is how God made us) now bring forth bad things naturally, and good things only with difficulty.

When God says that Cain is cursed from the face of the ground, He is saying, as I read it, that Cain has further alienated himself from his own nature, and also from humanity. Cain fears that, as well as being put away from the face of God, he is put away from the face of the ground -- from human contact -- because everyone will want to kill him.

Thus, when the text tells us that "adam" is taken from the ground -- as the plants and animals are -- and has been made to tend and keep it, I think that the main force of the text is that humanity has been placed in charge of the world and its creatures, to order and tend them, but primarily that we are responsible for cultivating our own own nature, the stuff of which we are made. This we failed to do, miserably, at the beginning.

The whole account, then, seems to me to have as much to do with the origins, purpose, and brokenness of humanity as with the individuals Adam and his wife.

As I understand it, God is here revealing to us the essential things we need to know about the nature of our life, its dependence upon God, our brokenness and rebelliousness and how that infects our very nature, and so on. These are revealed because they are essential truths which we will not properly understand without God's explicit instruction upon this point.


God made humanity, and we fell. That first fall has corrupted our very nature. It occurred through pride, disobedience, the temptation of the devil, rebellion, and lack of trust in God. It involved our trying to define ourselves, and to define what is right and wrong, rather than relying on God's will. Yes, I think that there were original human individuals who fell. But the early chapters of Genesis seem to be telling us about this in a way which is multi-layered, and requires careful reflection. It does not seem to me to be a detailed account of the mechanics of how God made us.


Note: I have been unable to get the post to accept the Hebrew "adamah", so I have mostly had to leave the Hebrew letters out. Sorry.

We can agree that the depth of the Word can never be exhausted. In the expanse of your presentation there appears to be no substance for that that which you seem te be implying.

Psalm 33:6 "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth."

Psalm 33:9 "For he spake, and it was [done]; he comanded, and it stood fast."

Scruffy Kid
Oct 7th 2012, 07:59 AM
God made the heavens and the earth, and specially made man, breathing into him the breath of life

By His Word, by the breath of His mouth, God made the heavens and the earth.
He commanded and they were created.

Praise THE LORD!!



Psalm 33:6 "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth."

Psalm 33:9 "For he spake, and it was [done]; he comanded, and it stood fast."
With these verses (as with all the Bible) I heartily agree.

Or as Psalm 148 in part puts it:

Psa 148:1 Praise ye the LORD. Praise ye the LORD from the heavens: praise him in the heights.
Psa 148:2 Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.
Psa 148:3 Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light.
Psa 148:4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.
Psa 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.

And as you say:

We can agree that the depth of the Word can never be exhausted.
However, you also say:

We can agree that the depth of the Word can never be exhausted. In the expanse of your presentation there appears to be no substance for that that which you seem te be implying.
It's hard to say what you mean when you refer to "that which you seem te be implying" and so it's hard to know what you mean when you say that there is "no substance" in my post for "that which" you suppose I "seem to be implying".

I was not just implying, vaguely, that the Scriptures always have inexhaustible depths and richness, although that of course is true. I was making specific points about the translation of the early chapters of Genesis, which was the specific subject of the thread.

Some specific things which need to be realized in understanding, or translating, or discussing, the Genesis text.

I said several more specific things. Among them:

(1) No translation can do justice to Genesis 1-3. By this, I tried to make clear, I meant a good deal more than the general proposition that "no translation can fully represents its original". I meant that the meaning of Genesis 1-3 is expressed, in important part, by the style and -- especially -- the passage.

(2) The passage is about human origins. One central word (starting, actually, with the final verses of Genesis 1) in all this, therefore, is the Hebrew word, Strong's 120, "adam" (). This word is used -- throughout the OT -- for "man" or "a man" or "humanity"; and it is also the word used for "Adam", a particular person, the first human being. When translations of Genesis say "man" the original text says "adam" ().

(3) The fact that Genesis 1-3 sometime uses "adam" () in the sense of "humanity", and sometimes to refer to the protagonist of Genesis 2-3, is part of what indicates that the language the Scriptures employ here is complex and -- in particular -- are using subtle and symbolic language.

(4) This is again indicated by the way the word "the ground" -- that is the Hebrew word "adamah" () -- is used in this account, and by the fact that "adam" and "adamah" are closely linked words. Thus, in expressing the close relationship between "adam" and "adamah", between "humankind" (or Adam) the text is using the richness of its language to indicate the way that we have injured, messed-up, the very stuff of which we are made by the fall.

(5) Also, this language of "adam" and "adamah" suggests that man was put on earth as a kind of caretaker, both of the creation (in which role he had pretty wide discretion) and also as caretaker of his own nature (in which regard he was to be the guardian of God's commands as to how he was to conduct himself)

rejoice44
Oct 7th 2012, 12:41 PM
[QUOTE=Scruffy Kid;2901330]Some specific things which need to be realized in understanding, or translating, or discussing, the Genesis text.

I said several more specific things. Among them:

(1) No translation can do justice to Genesis 1-3. By this, I tried to make clear, I meant a good deal more than the general proposition that "no translation can fully represents its original". I meant that the meaning of Genesis 1-3 is expressed, in important part, by the style and -- especially -- the passage.

You are making the assumtion that while God has his hand in inspiring the Hebrew or Greek, God stood back out of the way when it was translated into other languages. You are saying, by default, no translated bible is inspired.


(2) The passage is about human origins. One central word (starting, actually, with the final verses of Genesis 1) in all this, therefore, is the Hebrew word, Strong's 120, "adam" (). This word is used -- throughout the OT -- for "man" or "a man" or "humanity"; and it is also the word used for "Adam", a particular person, the first human being. When translations of Genesis say "man" the original text says "adam" ().

"Human origins" would be better phrased, "human origin".


(3) The fact that Genesis 1-3 sometime uses "adam" () in the sense of "humanity", and sometimes to refer to the protagonist of Genesis 2-3, is part of what indicates that the language the Scriptures employ here is complex and -- in particular -- are using subtle and symbolic language.

You don't believe that it is a good thing that English translations distinguish between the first man and his offspring? You don't believe that this distinction was inspired by God?


(4) This is again indicated by the way the word "the ground" -- that is the Hebrew word "adamah" () -- is used in this account, and by the fact that "adam" and "adamah" are closely linked words. Thus, in expressing the close relationship between "adam" and "adamah", between "humankind" (or Adam) the text is using the richness of its language to indicate the way that we have injured, messed-up, the very stuff of which we are made by the fall.

Doesn't this really show how that the bible was inspired by God? They had no way of knowing the actual elemental makeup of man.


(5) Also, this language of "adam" and "adamah" suggests that man was put on earth as a kind of caretaker, both of the creation (in which role he had pretty wide discretion) and also as caretaker of his own nature (in which regard he was to be the guardian of God's commands as to how he was to conduct himself)

We don't need a mere suggestion when God is quite explicit on this point.

Scruffy I don't understand your point as it relates to this thread. It may well be my fault, since I am often slow to pick up on some things.

decrumpit
Oct 8th 2012, 08:29 PM
The preconceived ideas that I have are that God does not lie.


What is truth? Is it what God says, or is it what we try and read inbetween the lines.

Truth is what God says, not what YOU say. Unless you are God, your interpretation is fallible.

You've started our discussion with the thought that your understanding is perfect. This will be very one sided if you don't want to reason from the text instead of shoot one liners back and forth.


There is no apology forthcoming for believing the "Word" in its simplistic form, simple enough for even a fifth grader. I keep hearing people say, "Hath God really said"?

The same arguments were used to support slavery in the 1860s. The same argument is used by everyone from the Jehovah's Witnesses to the Mormons and it won't fly here.

You're subtly calling me Satanic. I recall someone saying "If you call your brother fool, you are in danger of the fires of hell." I won't put the age of rocks or the meaning of "yom" above treating others charitably and you shouldn't either. There are better ways to disagree.

crawfish
Oct 9th 2012, 01:05 AM
Believing whether Adam was the first man, or not, is non-negotiable as pertainting to your belief in the bible. Anyone who does not believe that Adam was the first man, and that Eve was taken from his rib is an unbeliever. You cannot pick and choose what you wish to believe. Either the bible is true, or it is not true, there is no grey area.

My point with my last few posts above is that you cannot fit the bible into so neat a box. It is concerned with higher truths, and uses a variety of methods (historical, poetic, wisdom, prophecy) to get there. Believing what it says does not equate to believing in it in a way that it does not intend. And, like it or not, intent is up for discussion.

I do have to say, your accusations of "unbeliever" are pretty Pharisaical. Paul spent a significant amount of space in his letters railing against those who preached a gospel other than God's grace. I would very much suggest you reconsider your postion; it is antithetical to New Testament teaching.

Scruffy Kid
Oct 9th 2012, 01:43 AM
Believing whether Adam was the first man, or not, is non-negotiable as pertainting to your belief in the bible. Anyone who does not believe that Adam was the first man, and that Eve was taken from his rib is an unbeliever. You cannot pick and choose what you wish to believe. Either the bible is true, or it is not true, there is no grey area. My point with my last few posts above is that you cannot fit the bible into so neat a box. It is concerned with higher truths, and uses a variety of methods (historical, poetic, wisdom, prophecy) to get there. Believing what it says does not equate to believing in it in a way that it does not intend. And, like it or not, intent is up for discussion.

I do have to say, your accusations of "unbeliever" are pretty Pharisaical. Paul spent a significant amount of space in his letters railing against those who preached a gospel other than God's grace. I would very much suggest you reconsider your postion; it is antithetical to New Testament teaching.

Crawfish seems to me to raise several true and important points.

(1) The Bible as a whole is concerned with higher truths -- and certain central truths.
(2) The Bible uses a variety of methods (historical, poetic, wisdom, prophecy, etc.) to get there.
(3) Believing what the Bible says does not require believing a passage in a way that is not intended.

By implication, the discussion -- rejoice44's post quoted by crawfish, and crawfish's reply -- seem to suggest a kind of critique of rejoice44's way of proceeding:

(4) rejoice44 seems to lay down the law concerning which ways of understanding the Bible are acceptable, or make one a Christian.
But the basis for these judgements does not seem to be given, and does not seem to be biblical.

Scruffy Kid
Oct 9th 2012, 02:04 AM
Let's consider this last matter: requisites for true and effective Christian belief, and biblical foundations for declaring them requisites

One way of discussing what is necessary might be the impact of one's faith on one's treatment of others.
(a) Jesus says "if you do not forgive others, my heavenly father will not forgive you."
(b) This line of teaching is also present in the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matt. 18), and the surrounding teaching on forgiveness
(c) Jesus says that those who have visited the sick, the prisoners, fed the poor and hungry, and so on, enter heaven, for they have done it to him.
(d) This line of teaching is elaborated lots of places: Luke 12:33, Mark 10, and in the story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16), and also in the call of Zacchaeus (Luke 19). James says that true religion before the Father is to care for widows and orphans, and keep oneself unspotted from the world.

Another way of discussing what is necessary for true Christian faith might have to do with believing that Christ Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead. Thus Paul, in I Cor 15 says "I passed on to you as a matter of the greatest importance what I also received: that Christ Jesus died for our sins, and was buried, and was raised on the third day, and appeared to Peter, and to the 12, and to many witnesses." It's evident that, for Paul, this is of central importance to the Christian faith. There are many other texts which support this.

Many people -- me among them -- also think that it is essential that we believe that Christ Jesus is -- as He claimed to be -- personally God. Thus, in my estimation, an element of true Christian belief is that there is one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, distinct persons, yet one God. There are -- as the faithful body of Christians through the ages has understood these things) many texts which support this, and which support the necessity of believing that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man.

In a different passage, Paul -- as described by Luke in Acts 17 -- talking with the Athenian philosophers insists on belief as God as the maker of all things, that idolatry is wrong, and that God will judge the world through Jesus, etc.: "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead." (Acts 17:24-31)

There are other passages, which emphasize other features of true belief as well.

None of them, however, seems to emphasize a particular reading of Genesis 1, or Genesis 2-3, as the touchstone of true faith.

Thus, it seems to me reasonable to argue that the Bible does not greatly emphasize how we understand God's timetable in creation, or the exact means by which He created the earth, or humankind, but locates the beliefs which are essential somewhere else.

rejoice44
Oct 9th 2012, 02:14 AM
Truth is what God says, not what YOU say. Unless you are God, your interpretation is fallible.

You've started our discussion with the thought that your understanding is perfect. This will be very one sided if you don't want to reason from the text instead of shoot one liners back and forth.



The same arguments were used to support slavery in the 1860s. The same argument is used by everyone from the Jehovah's Witnesses to the Mormons and it won't fly here.

You're subtly calling me Satanic. I recall someone saying "If you call your brother fool, you are in danger of the fires of hell." I won't put the age of rocks or the meaning of "yom" above treating others charitably and you shouldn't either. There are better ways to disagree.

I apologize for anything that I have said that has so offended you, and I will refrain from posting any further in this thread.

decrumpit
Oct 9th 2012, 04:00 PM
I apologize for anything that I have said that has so offended you, and I will refrain from posting any further in this thread.

I realize that many things can't be communicated over the internet well. My point is that the Genesis narrative can't be pigeonholed into absolute categories (I am quite open to a literal reading at points, I just have other Biblical objections that prevent me from reading it that way). I have made many mistakes too, and should you want to continue I'd be happy to discuss this matter further. You're my brother (sister?) and I don't want hard feelings getting in the way of a good discussion.

rejoice44
Oct 10th 2012, 11:30 AM
I realize that many things can't be communicated over the internet well. My point is that the Genesis narrative can't be pigeonholed into absolute categories (I am quite open to a literal reading at points, I just have other Biblical objections that prevent me from reading it that way). I have made many mistakes too, and should you want to continue I'd be happy to discuss this matter further. You're my brother (sister?) and I don't want hard feelings getting in the way of a good discussion.

There is no hard feelings. You took my words personal, and they were meant to be a general statement. My faith is centered on the word of God. I believe the bible is the word of God, and finding holes in the bible with which to insert words is contrary to my faith. Changing the words is also offensive.