- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'm afraid I still do not understand your point. I, as opposed to many other Christians, do not believe Jesus to be God. He is God's Son, made, formed in Mary. He was 100% man. The difference is that He did not share our sinful nature. He was made like the first Adam. He had to be in order to redeem man.
That was in response to the comment that maybe Jesus wasn't God.
1 Cor 15:45
45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
(NKJ)
He is the man that God has appointed to be the head of the church because of His obedience. God has highly exalted Him to His right hand.
1 Cor 15:27-28
27 For "He has put all things under His feet." But when He says "all things are put under Him," it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.
28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.
(NKJ)
Originally posted by checkbaiter
It would not, in our estimation, be wrong to translate yatsar as a pluperfect in this instance: “He had molded.” The insistence of the critics upon a plain past is partly the result of the attempt to make chapters one and two clash at as many points as possible (1942, p. 130, emp. added).
So, this author admits the only reason to translate this otherwise
clear simple past as pluperfect is to avoid clashing with the first chapter.
Well, that's pretty shoddy scholarship, especially since it's pretty clear
from the vocabulary and writing style that these two texts (chapters 1
and 2, that is) derive from different times (the former signficiantly later
than the latter). Further, such a commentary fails to address the 'now'
or 'so' which makes no semantic sense with the pluperfect (which would
demand 'since,' say). Nor does it address the notion that 'Man was alone,'
for how could he ever have been alone if the pluperfect insists that the
animals existed beforehand?
Finally, none of this addresses verses 4b-7, wherein the text is explicit
that when man was formed, there were no grasses or shrubs on the
earth. If there were no grasses or shrubs (created on the third day), then
there could be no animals either (created on fifth and sixth day).
Hebrew scholar Victor Hamilton agreed with Leupold’s assessment of Genesis 2:19 as he also recognized that “it is possible to translate formed as ‘had formed’ ” (1990, p. 176).
What support for this possibility is there? What other examples of doing
so exist in the Penteteuch?
Keil and Delitzsch stated in the first volume of their highly regarded Old Testament commentary that “our modern style for expressing the same thought [which the Holy Spirit, via Moses, intended to communicate—EL] would be simply this: ‘God brought to Adam the beasts which He had formed’ ” (1996, emp. added).
Ah, here it is: a priori assumptions imposed upon the text: there
can't be an error because the Holy Spirit told Moses what happened.
Had this been true, then the Hebrew would read as Keil and Delitzsch have
rendered it. And yet it does not. So, Keil and Delitzsch have imposed
their interpretation upon the 'Holy Spirit's,' rendering the text differently
than it actually says. How brazen!
Adding even more credence to this interpretation is the fact that the New International Version (NIV ) renders the verb in verse 19, not as simple past tense, but as a pluperfect...
This is a backwards argument! Because a Bible translated that way
serves as support? That's silly. If the translation is erroneous (which it
is), then it only supports an erroneous conclusion.
...it is important to note that the four Hebrew scholars mentioned above and the translators of the NIV , all believe that it could (or should) be rendered “had formed.”
Well, that's a laugh, isn't it! Because they translated it that way gives
credence to their argument?! Wow. If they really wrote what you wrote,
that's serious hubris.
And, as Leupold acknowledged, those who deny this possibility do so (at least partly) because of their insistence on making the two chapters disagree.
I deny the possibility because the Hebrew has a pluperfect form that they
could have used and there is no justification for changing the that which
was written already to something else, except to harmonize.
Nemesio
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by NemesioI don't care about any of this, I contend that Gen 2 is simply more detail...you are entitled to believe whatever you choose.
I deny the possibility because the Hebrew has a pluperfect form that they
could have used and there is no justification for changing the that which
was written already to something else, except to harmonize.
Nemesio
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by NemesioGive the guy a break Nemesio. Intellectual gymnastics is tiring, and at the end of the day he does not have to convince you for God to smile down upon him. All he needs to do as make sure he continues to believe that his magic book is perfect in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Making the text stand on its head, and engaging in intellectual dishonesty takes away from the time he could have is head buried happily in the sand.
So, you freely admit to adopting a translation that does not reflect the
actual text?
Nemesio
Originally posted by TheSkipperI merely want him to admit his intellectual dishonesty.
Give the guy a break Nemesio. Intellectual gymnastics is tiring, and at the end of the day he does not have to convince you for God to smile down upon him. All he needs to do as make sure he continues to believe that his magic book is perfect in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Making the text stand on its head, and engaging in intellectual dishonesty takes away from the time he could have is head buried happily in the sand.
Nemesio
Originally posted by TheSkipperThis is precisely what I am talking about when I refer to an idolatrous
Give the guy a break Nemesio. Intellectual gymnastics is tiring, and at the end of the day he does not have to convince you for God to smile down upon him. All he needs to do as make sure he continues to believe that his magic book is perfect in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Making the text stand on its head, and engaging in intellectual dishonesty takes away from the time he could have is head buried happily in the sand.
approach to the Bible. It's a perfect example, actually.
People have a vested interest in the Bible's text having a certain content,
and so they twist and turn such that their interpretations render such a
content. In checkbaiter's case, he needs the two texts to harmonize,
so he justifies his altering the actual text based on this need. If he did
not have this a priori need, he would make no such alteration to
the text, his complaints about skeptics notwithstanding.
It is this need for the text to read a certain way that makes it idolatrous.
Nemesio
Originally posted by checkbaiterOK. Then has anyone ever lived a sinless life who was not God or God's Son?
I'm afraid I still do not understand your point. I, as opposed to many other Christians, do not believe Jesus to be God. He is God's Son, made, formed in Mary. He was 100% man. The difference is that He did not share our sinful nature. He was made like the first Adam. He had to be in order to redeem man.
1 Cor 15:45
45 And so it is written, "The firs ...[text shortened]... also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.
(NKJ)
Originally posted by doodinthemoodbut noah go drunk later.
Most probably, not, and even so, the chances of it being you are minimal. Here are some relevant passages and the one exception I could find 🙂
No sinless people:
Ecclesiastes 7:20, Romans 3:10, Isaiah 64:6
Noah was perfect:
Genesis 6:9,
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by NemesioIt is not dishonesty! Genesis 2 is giving more detail that was not given in Gen 1. I understand that there are minor errors in translation. But this is not one of them. God does not have to give order in Gen 2, He has already done that. The text does not refer to time in Gen 2.
I merely want him to admit his intellectual dishonesty.
Nemesio
Originally posted by checkbaiterIf you translate 'formed' as 'had formed' when the latter has a totally
It is not dishonesty! Genesis 2 is giving more detail that was not given in Gen 1. I understand that there are minor errors in translation. But this is not one of them. God does not have to give order in Gen 2, He has already done that. The text does not refer to time in Gen 2.
different conjugation in the original, then you are being intellectually
dishonest.
How is this not patent?
Nemesio
P.S., How did you explain the shrubs and grasses bit?
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThey do not choose to sin. I know this in itself sounds contradictory. But every man, woman and child is born with sin already. But it is the potential to sin, because of their nature. Just as a cow has no choice but to give birth to a calf, man inherits Adam's sin nature.
Why do 100% of such people choose to sin?
Why would God make commands he knew that nobody would follow?
So man has no choise but to sin. It is our nature. The law was our "schoolmaster" to bring us to Christ. That is what these verses are talking about....
Gal 3:21-29
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.
22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.
24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
(NKJ)
The law merely shows how sinful we are, and should lead us to seek a Redeemer, Christ.