steveorino 7 #401 December 25, 2006 I don't believe it matters who you learned it from, I believe the major criteria is written language; something the Hebrews did well before the NT time. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #402 December 25, 2006 QuoteI don't believe it matters who you learned it from, I believe the major criteria is written language; something the Hebrews did well before the NT time. It's all a matter of interpretation. What do you have against neolithic tribes anyway? All of our ancestors were neolithic at some time. They made some pretty good creation myths too. Hope your Christmas goes well.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #403 December 25, 2006 QuoteDoes the NT stand alone? If so, why is it always accompanied by the OT as preface? Christ is the cnetrpoint of the Christian faith. The OT points to Christ in every book. The NT could stand alone, but since Hebrews wrote about Christ 1000s years before he came it has its purpose. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #404 December 25, 2006 QuoteQuoteDoes the NT stand alone? If so, why is it always accompanied by the OT as preface? Christ is the cnetrpoint of the Christian faith. The OT points to Christ in every book. The NT could stand alone, but since Hebrews wrote about Christ 1000s years before he came it has its purpose. OK, I could now argue in favor of my original statement, but I'm not going to on account of the season! ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,595 #405 December 25, 2006 QuoteQuoteNo offense, but I believe you lack insight into what atheists think. You seem to believe anyone who approaches the Bible with a bit of logic is a "fundy atheist." If you don't see the many inconsistencies of the Bible, perhaps it is not the atheists who lack the insight. No, I see anyone who can only interpret the Bible as literal as fundy. You fit that category as well as some Christians on these forums. One thing I wonder about though is how far away from the authors original intent are you going when you interpret so much as metaphor? The old chestnut of Genesis is of course what springs immediately to mind - what did the authors believe if not the literal truth of the genesis story? Sure you can now look at it in a different way as a metaphor for what science tells us happened happened, but thats looking for meaning thats not intended to be there, right?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #406 December 25, 2006 We will never know how the original authors understood it. My guess, is most likley they thought it as literal. However, since "adam" (hebrew word for man) didn't write it and we know it came from oral tradition. How the original "story teller" was inspired is a question for another day. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #407 December 27, 2006 "Actually, the word used there was "haarets" and often is interpreted as the kingdom of Judea. " Note the use of the word often. Often =always? nope. Also note the phrase"the word used", the word used in what? The original texts? Has anyone ever seen these? Nope. If people believed in the past they were refering to Judea they would have put Judea, they didnt. When someone comes along and points out that this would be impossible the definitions of the words change to fit the facts. That is not intelectually honest. Just like we now know the world wasnt created in 6 days , so, no problem we just change the definition of a day. My point is that the fluidity of biblical interprettations is such that one can often make it mean what one likes. my original response to the idea that the bible is sceintifically verified was showing that if you pull up a verse and intrpret it in a particular way it might seems sceintiifically valid. But that is just selectiion on the part fo the believer. The opposite view can be taken just as strongly with the same text. So no the bible is not verified by science, in fact if anyhting the opposite is true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #408 December 27, 2006 QuoteIf people believed in the past they were refering to Judea they would have put Judea,. This goes to show how little you know of Hebrew writers and texts. They seldom referred to themselves that way. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #409 December 28, 2006 Well i studied for 8 years in hebrew, did you?Do you even know any hebrew? Are you seriosuly suggesting that the wirters of the bible never used the names of places in a literal context? Do i have to dredge out a long list of exanples? "they seldon refferred to themsleves that way" referring to themselves? This passage is about referring to a location, not to themselves anyway. Furthermore even if you had a point about the Hebrew which you dont, it woud be irrelevant since there are no originla copies of the gospels so its nothing but speculation as to what language they were even written in or who wrote them; could have been hebrew, maybe Aramamaic, maybe Greek. we dont know. all we do know is that there is no mention of judea in the text under question. You want us to believe that the author or authors (we dont know which) meant Judea even though they didnt say it. why? Becuase its convenient fo you to believe that.Thats very common in biblical interpretation; people make it mean what they want it to mean. when they want it to be literal, maybe for example "love your neighhbour"its literal, when they want it to be metaphorical perhaps for example god rested on the 7th day ,or when jesus said i didnt come to bring peace I came to bring a sword, its metaphorical. What should we conclude? That the bible cannnot be used as any definitive guide as to how to live our lives. People put their own spin on it, no matter what it actually says,I suspect they always have and always will.If it were the work of some all powerful god then he would know this was going to happen and maybe could have made his intentions more clear, the fact that its so open to interpretation only strengthens the case that its a fallible work written by fallible men. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #410 December 28, 2006 I had a year of Hebrew, but since the NT was written in KONIA GREEK, mine and your knowledge of Hebrew is irrelevant. I had two years Konia greek. How about you? A couple of rules I was taught to use when getting a Masters in Theology was ... #1 the biblical writer is writing to HIS generation in HIS language using HIS culture and idioms while being inspired by God. Therefore, it is best to see how any text reads to the present generation. Jews at JC's time were concerned with nationality, not the world. #2 interpret a confusing text in the light of a clear one. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AFFI 0 #411 December 28, 2006 I've got 40 years of masturbation, how bout you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #413 December 28, 2006 QuoteI've got 40 years of masturbation, how bout you? Then I guess you're more skilled in that area. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,595 #414 December 29, 2006 Quote#1 the biblical writer is writing to HIS generation in HIS language using HIS culture and idioms while being inspired by God. Therefore, it is best to see how any text reads to the present generation. That sounds completely counterintuitive. Explanation?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #415 December 29, 2006 QuoteI had a year of Hebrew, but since the NT was written in KONIA GREEK, mine and your knowledge of Hebrew is irrelevant. I had two years Konia greek. How about you? A couple of rules I was taught to use when getting a Masters in Theology was ... #1 the biblical writer is writing to HIS generation in HIS language using HIS culture and idioms while being inspired by God. Therefore, it is best to see how any text reads to the present generation. Jews at JC's time were concerned with nationality, not the world. #2 interpret a confusing text in the light of a clear one. So today such a writer would be explaining our existence using geology, paleontology, genetics and evolutionary biology, as opposed to a creation myth.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #416 December 29, 2006 QuoteQuote#1 the biblical writer is writing to HIS generation in HIS language using HIS culture and idioms while being inspired by God. Therefore, it is best to see how any text reads to the present generation. That sounds completely counterintuitive. Explanation? What don't you understand? I said I believe the biblical writers were inspired by God to write, ut allowed to write in their own language (complete with idioms)in the general knowledge of the time. Why do Americans of 2006 thinks they are so special that God's inspired writers must have used English (including our idioms) and complete with the knowledge we have now. Of course 500 years from now, it would be dated as much as knowledge from 1500s is dated when compared to today. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,595 #417 December 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote#1 the biblical writer is writing to HIS generation in HIS language using HIS culture and idioms while being inspired by God. Therefore, it is best to see how any text reads to the present generation. That sounds completely counterintuitive. Explanation? What don't you understand? I said I believe the biblical writers were inspired by God to write, ut allowed to write in their own language (complete with idioms)in the general knowledge of the time. Why do Americans of 2006 thinks they are so special that God's inspired writers must have used English (including our idioms) and complete with the knowledge we have now. Of course 500 years from now, it would be dated as much as knowledge from 1500s is dated when compared to today. Ah right, you meant the generation contemporary to the writers? I thought by present generation you meant, well, the present generation! Or were you talking about modern translators writing for a modern audience?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #418 December 29, 2006 Quote Ah right, you meant the generation contemporary to the writers? Yes, I see how I confused you with the term present generation. I meant the generation present at the time of the writing. Sorry for the confusion. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
