The Bible

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Karado wrote:
Thank you…your last two posts make sense…looks there will always be legitimate ‘wiggle room’
for the Amourous Angels possibilty, no matter what anyone sez.
There’s a “Sacred Heart” Catholic Church my sister goes to, and they’ve taught that, and
hold to that position, maybe the Priests also have copies of Enoch, Jubilees, and Jasher in the Rectory to further confirm Angel/Human unions? (The book of Jasher is mentioned twice is Scripture)
Who knows.
[/quote]

Which Sacred Heart?

[Karado]

Illinois, Chicago area.
You don’t want to burn those extra biblical books do ya?
lol j/k

[KingKai25]

[quote]Karado wrote:
Very Interesting.
Jude seemingly alludes to the sexual sins of the Angels anyway, comparing what they did
to the human sexual sins at Sodom…Jude sez the Bad Angels left their “first estate”, their original habitation, a big no-no…they broke the rules, also confirmed in the Book Of Enoch.

Compare “The Book Of The Watchers”, Enoch Chapter 7, to Genesis 6, It’s very similar…it seems to clear this up who the “Sons Of God” really were…they were Angels.
And yes, yes, I know it’s not Scripture, fine, but that doesn’t automatically mean it’s
false either…The Dead Sea Scrolls are the probably the most important find
of the 20th Century.

Enoch 7:1 It happened after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful.

Enoch 7:2 And when the angels, the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamoured of them, saying to each other, Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children.

Enoch 7:3 Then their leader Samyaza said to them; I fear that you may perhaps be indisposed to the performance of this enterprise;

Enoch 7:4 And that I alone shall suffer for so grievous a crime.

Enoch 7:5 But they answered him and said; We all swear;

Enoch 7:6 And bind ourselves by mutual execrations, that we will not change our intention, but execute our projected undertaking.

And so it began…til the deluge, to wipe the resultant hybrids and nasty neandrathals out
of existence…allegedly.

[/quote]

Karado, I thought we already covered this stuff? You are far too preoccupied with these relatively insignificant issues.

There are only two legitimate possibilities; the whole “lines of Seth” theory is ahistorical nonsense. The distinction between the lines of Seth and Cain simply plays no significant role in the text. Either “sons of God” refers to angelic/semi-divine beings, which is far and away the dominant meaning of benai elohim in the Hebrew bible, or sons of God refers to kings, which is a common meaning of parallel phrases in other ANE languages. Either rendering is possible, and the Enochic literature, Jude, and 1-2 Peter are not independent attestations to the same event, but are rather interpretations of Genesis 6. Jude and 1-2 Peter reflect the same tradition of interpretation as the Enochic literature; all of these texts were written several centuries after Genesis.

Why does 1 Enoch 7 look so much like Genesis 6? Simple - 1 Enoch 7, written hundreds of years after Genesis, is rewriting the Genesis account in an attempt to provide an answer to some perplexing questions raised by Genesis 6, such as who the benai elohim were and why they are discussed in the same section as humanity’s evil state. The author of the Book of Watchers answers these questions by interpreting “the sons of God” as angels and interpreting their sin as the one that set the ball rolling with regard to the corruption of humanity. In other words, whereas Paul traces the clear sinfulness of humankind to Adam, the Book of Watchers presents the influence of fallen angels as the cause of humanity’s corruption. This sort of rewriting or expansion of sacred texts was done ALL THE TIME in Second Temple Judaism, and while such texts were not held as authoritative in the same way as the originals, they were highly influential in shaping the way Jews interpreted their sacred texts.

So either option could be correct; the support of 1 Enoch or Jude or 1-2 Peter is irrelevant, because 1 Enoch is just one attempt to interpret Genesis 6, and Jude/1-2 Peter reflect that common interpretation. The author of Genesis certainly had a reason for including this anecdote about the Nephilim, but it is lost to us today, and there is NO reason to use it as the basis of your argument for the “death of Neanderthals.” That would never have even crossed the author’s mind.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< Karado, I thought we already covered this stuff? You are far too preoccupied with these relatively insignificant issues. >>>[/quote] There’s an echo in here. I speak and comes back KingKai’s voice.

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

Wrong? Not just “wrong,” but “completely wrong!”
Ok, I’ll see you biblia hebraica and raise you one Rashi.

Haha nice move, but I’m going to have to throw a flag on this one. Rashi was an 11th century rabbi, a fact which renders any appeals to his authority suspect on two levels. First of all, there have been considerable developments in our knowledge of ancient Hebrew since Rashi’s time. Secondly, like most rabbis in the middle ages, Rashi assumed a relatively naive view of God’s role in the authorship of Scripture, such that, for Rashi, every aspect of the text is assumed to bear tremendous significance. The passage you refer to in his commentary on Genesis illustrates this second point well. Rashi’s problem with taking verse 1 as an independent clause is not so much syntactical as theological, as I will demonstrate momentarily.

(BTW, noun-verb position does make a difference, but it is a difference that modernists ignore freely.)

The modernist charge is ludicrous. Again, the rabbis assumed that little things like that bore more significance than can be linguistically justified. The fact is that the verb-subject-object construction is standard in Hebrew prose. In other words, Genesis 1 evinces a typical sentence construction. The only times subjects/ objects occur before the verbs in prose is for emphasis or to mark a change in subject (poetry is much more variable in its syntax). Even the placement of the temporal marker bereshit at the beginning of the sentence is standard. There is nothing strange about the syntax of this sentence.

I choose not to translate the entire section from Rashi, but he insists that “breshit bara elohim” is to be understood as “breshit baro” in the context of the lead in, “breshit” not “reshit” (“for (or when) in the beginning” not “in the beginning” because “reshit” acts as a preposition immediately before a noun.)

This is simply false - Rashi’s syntactical argument for the meaning of bereshit is not that reshit acts as a preposition before a noun. Rather, Rashi argues that reshit is always in the construct state, meaning that it is always precedes and is modified by another noun (KING of kings, LORD of lords; HOUSE of cards). Reshit isn’t actually used very frequently in a temporal sense; it is usually used to denote “first,” as is most often found in references to “the choice first fruits” intended as offerings. With the inseparable preposition bet, however, it denotes a time period, and this precise collocation only occurs 4 times in Scripture. A recent study demonstrated that bereshit always denotes a period of time rather than a point in time; for example, in Jeremiah 49:34, bereshit does not refer to the moment when Zedekiah’s reign began, but rather to the early period of his reign. This supports my earlier point that Genesis 1:1 is a summative statement introducing what follows, NOT an account of God’s first act of creation (meaning there’s no room for the ludicrous “gap” theory). Again, this kind of summative statement preceding the account of the action is common in Genesis; look at 7:1-10, where God commands Noah to take his family and various animals into the ark (7:1-4); the command is followed by the claim that Noah did exactly what God commanded (7:5); and then the actual account of Noah and the animals entering the ark and the coming of the flood is told in 7:6-10.

To simplify, from Herczeg’s annotation of Rashi: "‘bora’ is understood as a gerund rather than a verb. { or the noun, creation or creating} To Rashi, "the verse does not come to teach the order of Creation…rather, the first act of God stated by the passage is ‘God said, “Let there be light.”’ etc.

Yes, Rashi wrongly interprets bara as a gerund rather than a finite verb, and he does so based on (1) his lack of awareness of the summative statements that structure Genesis; (2) his inappropriate comparison of the function of the word tehilla in Hosea 1:2 with bereshit in Genesis 1:1; (3) his incredulity over the fact that, if (in his view) Genesis 1:1 was taking as an independent clause, this would imply that the heavens and earth were created before water. Again, if Genesis 1:1 is a summative statement, the entire problem disappears, and this is the much more natural sense of the syntax. So Rashi is still right - verse 1 does not “teach the order of creation” - but there is no legitimate linguistic basis for reading the qal verb bara (and yes, Doc, it IS a qal verb) as a gerund.

You’ve got to update your source material - Rashi, like most of the rabbis, allowed theological concerns to color his grammatical evaluation. I’m not going to cite Augustine as a evidence that Paul affirmed original sin.
[/quote]

I will make this short. Rashi is not merely an 11th C rabbi, but he was the distillation of hundreds of years of commentaries, which he cites freely.

Simply put, the word “breshit” is NOT a noun, in the sense of the KJV “In the beginning, God created…”

Breshit, the word, is indeed the construct state, as you point out…so where is the noun to follow? “Beginning of…” of what? Not the beginning of God, certainly. “In the beginning of God’s creating…” The construct case of “inthe beginning…” takes the noun gerund “creating.”

Further, you may actually want to look at Rashi’s comments on this line before calling him wrong. He cites the other instances of “breshit” as well. Or for a quick glance, look at Strong’s Concordance, and see that wherever “breshit” is used, it is used in the construct case before a a noun (usually a period of time, or a reign of a king, for example.)

Last, to cast Rashi aside because he voices theological concerns invites two errors. FIrst, he was the great grammarian.
And second, every Christian reading of the Old Testament is overlaid with gratuitous theological concerns. When you abandon yours, perhaps the text will be freed from Christian theological errors in its interpretation.

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Speaking of Gen 1:1 and Gen 6:1-5, from Barnes’ Notes on the Bible:

The original word אלהים Elohim, God, is certainly the plural form of אל El, or אלה Eloah, and has long been supposed, by the most eminently learned and pious men, to imply a plurality of Persons in the Divine nature. As this plurality appears in so many parts of the sacred writings to be confined to three Persons, hence the doctrine of the Trinity, which has formed a part of the creed of all those who have been deemed sound in the faith, from the earliest ages of Christianity. Nor are the Christians singular in receiving this doctrine, and in deriving it from the first words of Divine revelation.

An eminent Jewish rabbi, Simeon ben Joachi, in his comment on the sixth section of Leviticus, has these remarkable words: “Come and see the mystery of the word Elohim; there are three degrees, and each degree by itself alone, and yet notwithstanding they are all one, and joined together in one, and are not divided from each other.” See Ainsworth. He must be strangely prejudiced indeed who cannot see that the doctrine of a Trinity, and of a Trinity in unity, is expressed in the above words.

The verb ברא bara, he created, being joined in the singular number with this plural noun, has been considered as pointing out, and not obscurely, the unity of the Divine Persons in this work of creation. In the ever-blessed Trinity, from the infinite and indivisible unity of the persons, there can be but one will, one purpose, and one infinite and uncontrollable energy.[/quote]

Elohim hs the form of a plural but when it is used for a name of God it takes always the singular verb and constructions. Where the word takes the plural verb and constructions, it is understood to be the plural of eloah–important men, nobles, judges, magistrates, that sort of thing. And to KingKai, a very good grammarian himself, the definite article “ha” does indeed make a difference; the definite article is not used before the name of GOd, but it is used when speaking of a group of particular “nobles.” (i.e., ha=elohim never means The God; it means “the nobles.”)

THe rest of the paragraph is a Christian attempt to find the Trinity where there is none. The “degrees” has nothing to do with God-in-three persons. (Too complicated to explain here, but it has to do with the emphasis of aspects of God’s attittudes: mercy, justice,judging, loving-kindness, etc. Ben Joachi is NOT a trinitarian!!!) I guess one must be "strangely prejudiced indeed"to read into these words the Doctrine of the Trinity!

[KingKai25]

I will make this short.

I’ll try to do the same.

Rashi is not merely an 11th C rabbi, but he was the distillation of hundreds of years of commentaries, which he cites freely.

The emphasis of my statement was not on the “an” but the “11th century.” Rashi comes from a time before some significant developments in our understanding of the Hebrew language. It doesn’t matter how many Rabbis before him thought the same thing; significant developments have occurred to which Rashi and the rabbis before him were not privy.

Simply put, the word “breshit” is NOT a noun, in the sense of the KJV “In the beginning, God created…”

RESHIT is a noun, and when coupled with bet, it is a temporal marker.

Breshit, the word, is indeed the construct state, as you point out…so where is the noun to follow? “Beginning of…” of what? Not the beginning of God, certainly. “In the beginning of God’s creating…” The construct case of “inthe beginning…” takes the noun gerund “creating.”

False - I did not say that bereshit was in the construct state. Actually, it is in the absolute state (meaning it is not taking a modifier). If YOU had read Rashi more thoroughly (I have his commentary on the Torah), you would have realized that his argument is that bereshit is in the construct state everywhere ELSE in Scripture (which is also false, as Lev. 2:12), so it should be interpreted as a construct here as well. As I said, that is a false assertion - in both Lev. 2:12 AND here in Genesis 1:1, reshit is in the absolute state.

Further, you may actually want to look at Rashi’s comments on this line before calling him wrong. He cites the other instances of “breshit” as well. Or for a quick glance, look at Strong’s Concordance, and see that wherever “breshit” is used, it is used in the construct case before a a noun (usually a period of time, or a reign of a king, for example.)

Lol did you even read what I wrote above? Because I said exactly what you said above. reshit on its own usually denotes “first,” but when coupled with the inseparable preposition bet (be-reshit), it denotes a period of time. My point was that in 3 of the 4 cases where bereshit occurs and functions temporally, it is in the construct state, whereas in Genesis 1:1, it is in the absolute state. I read Rashi quite thoroughly; you need to do the same.

Last, to cast Rashi aside because he voices theological concerns invites two errors. FIrst, he was the great grammarian.
And second, every Christian reading of the Old Testament is overlaid with gratuitous theological concerns. When you abandon yours, perhaps the text will be freed from Christian theological errors in its interpretation.

I didn’t cast him aside because he voices theological concerns; my point is that regardless of his grammatical facility in general, he, like the rest of the rabbis, often allowed theological concerns to dictate his grammatical decisions. His treatment of genesis 1:1 is an excellent example of what I am talking about - “Genesis 1:1 CAN’T mean this, so we need to repoint the entire passage…”

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Karado wrote:
Illinois, Chicago area.
You don’t want to burn those extra biblical books do ya?
lol j/k
[/quote]

No. Only bad translations of Bibles.

Trying to figure out how close it is to me.

[KingKai25]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Elohim hs the form of a plural but when it is used for a name of God it takes always the singular verb and constructions. Where the word takes the plural verb and constructions, it is understood to be the plural of eloah–important men, nobles, judges, magistrates, that sort of thing. And to KingKai, a very good grammarian himself, the definite article “ha” does indeed make a difference; the definite article is not used before the name of GOd, but it is used when speaking of a group of particular “nobles.” (i.e., ha=elohim never means The God; it means “the nobles.”)
[/quote]

Lol Do you think I just list verses for my own amusement? I put them there because they prove my point. Even when Elohim is a reference to God himself, it sometimes takes the article and sometimes doesn’t. Genesis 5:22 - Enoch walked with God (ha-elohim); Gen. 6:11 - the earth became corrupt before God (ha-elohim); Gen. 17:18 - “Abraham said to God (ha-elohim)”; Gen. 20:6 - “God (ha-elohim) said to him (Abimelech) in a dream…”; Gen. 20:17 - Abraham then prayed to God (ha-elohim), and God healed Abimelech…" That’s only going half-way through Genesis! Sometimes the article is used with elohim when the reference is God himself, so you cannot use the absence or presence of the article to distinguish between a reference to God or nobles.

[quote]
THe rest of the paragraph is a Christian attempt to find the Trinity where there is none. The “degrees” has nothing to do with God-in-three persons. (Too complicated to explain here, but it has to do with the emphasis of aspects of God’s attittudes: mercy, justice,judging, loving-kindness, etc. Ben Joachi is NOT a trinitarian!!!) I guess one must be "strangely prejudiced indeed"to read into these words the Doctrine of the Trinity![/quote]

Believe it or not, I agree with you wholeheartedly. There are legitimate historical reasons for the use of the plural elohim to refer to Yahweh; reading some sort of nascent Trinitarian theology into the term is completely illegitimate (and doesn’t really make the point we Christians want it to make, ontologically speaking, anyway).

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

I will make this short.

I’ll try to do the same.

Rashi is not merely an 11th C rabbi, but he was the distillation of hundreds of years of commentaries, which he cites freely.

The emphasis of my statement was not on the “an” but the “11th century.” Rashi comes from a time before some significant developments in our understanding of the Hebrew language. It doesn’t matter how many Rabbis before him thought the same thing; significant developments have occurred to which Rashi and the rabbis before him were not privy.

Simply put, the word “breshit” is NOT a noun, in the sense of the KJV “In the beginning, God created…”

RESHIT is a noun, and when coupled with bet, it is a temporal marker.
[/quote]
Yes, and both Rashi and Sforno indicate that the “B” is a temporal marker. As I meant, reshit or b’reshit is a noun in the construct state, not an absolute noun that would mean beginning or start; It takes a noun to follow it.

[quote]

Breshit, the word, is indeed the construct state, as you point out…so where is the noun to follow? “Beginning of…” of what? Not the beginning of God, certainly. “In the beginning of God’s creating…” The construct case of “inthe beginning…” takes the noun gerund “creating.”

False - I did not say that bereshit was in the construct state. Actually, it is in the absolute state (meaning it is not taking a modifier). If YOU had read Rashi more thoroughly (I have his commentary on the Torah), you would have realized that his argument is that bereshit is in the construct state everywhere ELSE in Scripture (which is also false, as Lev. 2:12), so it should be interpreted as a construct here as well. As I said, that is a false assertion - in both Lev. 2:12 AND here in Genesis 1:1, reshit is in the absolute state.

Further, you may actually want to look at Rashi’s comments on this line before calling him wrong. He cites the other instances of “breshit” as well. Or for a quick glance, look at Strong’s Concordance, and see that wherever “breshit” is used, it is used in the construct case before a a noun (usually a period of time, or a reign of a king, for example.)

Lol did you even read what I wrote above? Because I said exactly what you said above. reshit on its own usually denotes “first,” but when coupled with the inseparable preposition bet (be-reshit), it denotes a period of time. My point was that in 3 of the 4 cases where bereshit occurs and functions temporally, it is in the construct state, whereas in Genesis 1:1, it is in the absolute state. I read Rashi quite thoroughly; you need to do the same.

Last, to cast Rashi aside because he voices theological concerns invites two errors. FIrst, he was the great grammarian.
And second, every Christian reading of the Old Testament is overlaid with gratuitous theological concerns. When you abandon yours, perhaps the text will be freed from Christian theological errors in its interpretation.

I didn’t cast him aside because he voices theological concerns; my point is that regardless of his grammatical facility in general, he, like the rest of the rabbis, often allowed theological concerns to dictate his grammatical decisions. His treatment of genesis 1:1 is an excellent example of what I am talking about - “Genesis 1:1 CAN’T mean this, so we need to repoint the entire passage…”[/quote]

Do you mean to say he criticised the accepted Masoretic pointing–in this case “changing” the verb in qal, bara, to the gerund, bora? Ah, well, such is scholarship…Only it makes sense as a whole.

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Elohim hs the form of a plural but when it is used for a name of God it takes always the singular verb and constructions. Where the word takes the plural verb and constructions, it is understood to be the plural of eloah–important men, nobles, judges, magistrates, that sort of thing. And to KingKai, a very good grammarian himself, the definite article “ha” does indeed make a difference; the definite article is not used before the name of GOd, but it is used when speaking of a group of particular “nobles.” (i.e., ha=elohim never means The God; it means “the nobles.”)
[/quote]

Lol Do you think I just list verses for my own amusement? I put them there because they prove my point. Even when Elohim is a reference to God himself, it sometimes takes the article and sometimes doesn’t. Genesis 5:22 - Enoch walked with God (ha-elohim); Gen. 6:11 - the earth became corrupt before God (ha-elohim); Gen. 17:18 - “Abraham said to God (ha-elohim)”; Gen. 20:6 - “God (ha-elohim) said to him (Abimelech) in a dream…”; Gen. 20:17 - Abraham then prayed to God (ha-elohim), and God healed Abimelech…" That’s only going half-way through Genesis! Sometimes the article is used with elohim when the reference is God himself, so you cannot use the absence or presence of the article to distinguish between a reference to God or nobles.

[/quote]
You do notice that most–not all–the examples you cite use theat article when God assumes the objective case?
SO, I guess the interpretation is truly in the realm of context. Elohim means GOd when and where it makes sense; it means lords when and where it makes sense that way, too. (You will note that I was careful to say ha-elohim never means “The God.”)

[quote]

THe rest of the paragraph is a Christian attempt to find the Trinity where there is none. The “degrees” has nothing to do with God-in-three persons. (Too complicated to explain here, but it has to do with the emphasis of aspects of God’s attittudes: mercy, justice,judging, loving-kindness, etc. Ben Joachi is NOT a trinitarian!!!) I guess one must be "strangely prejudiced indeed"to read into these words the Doctrine of the Trinity![/quote]

Believe it or not, I agree with you wholeheartedly. There are legitimate historical reasons for the use of the plural elohim to refer to Yahweh; reading some sort of nascent Trinitarian theology into the term is completely illegitimate (and doesn’t really make the point we Christians want it to make, ontologically speaking, anyway).

Oh I know we have broad areas of agreement. Thanks for the discussion.

[KingKai25]

Yes, and both Rashi and Sforno indicate that the “B” is a temporal marker. As I meant, reshit or b’reshit is a noun in the construct state, not an absolute noun that would mean beginning or start; It takes a noun to follow it.

The whole collocation of bet + reshit is a temporal marker; when reshit occurs without bet, it usually denotes “first or chief” (i.e., it does not denote time). Once again, bereshit in Genesis 1:1 is a noun with the bet preposition attached, and it is in the absolute state. It would simply mean “beginning;” the addition of the bet makes it “IN the beginning.” It is not in the construct state, and Rashi was incorrect in his assert that reshit always occurs in the construct state, because it is in the absolute state in Lev. 2:12 as well. It does not require a noun to follow it; that was Rashi’s conjecture based on his erroneous assumption that reshit is always in the construct state in Scripture.

Do you mean to say he criticised the accepted Masoretic pointing–in this case “changing” the verb in qal, bara, to the gerund, bora? Ah, well, such is scholarship…Only it makes sense as a whole.

I’m not disagreeing with your fundamental point, which is that the first act of creation was “let there be light,” that Genesis 1 does not assume the creation of heaven and earth prior to the events discussed in the verses that follow. My point is that Rashi’s solution, the solution you are proposing, his way of getting to his conclusion, is wrong. My argument actually makes the most sense because it is based on common conventions found throughout the book of Genesis - Genesis 1:1 is a summary statement of everything that follows in subsequent verses.

[KingKai25]

You do notice that most–not all–the examples you cite use theat article when God assumes the objective case?
SO, I guess the interpretation is truly in the realm of context. Elohim means GOd when and where it makes sense; it means lords when and where it makes sense that way, too. (You will note that I was careful to say ha-elohim never means “The God.”)

Here’s some more where God is used as a subject - “God (ha-elohim) put Abraham to the test” (Gen. 22:1); “he (Abraham) set out for the place which God (ha-elohim) had told him” (Gen. 22:2); “May God (ha-elohim) give to you of the dew of heaven” (Gen. 27:28); “God (ha-elohim) in whose ways my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked…” (Gen. 48:15). That last one usually gets translated as “THE God” (see JPS), but that’s enough for now. So yes, it is a matter of context, but in all honesty, I have seen no examples where it means “lords” at all. That is a very uncommon meaning; I could not find it at all in BDB, the standard lexicon for the Hebrew bible. It would more rightly be translated “gods” than “lords.”

[pat]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
I don’t think you’re dumb at all, Pat. At all. However, as I figured, this hermeneutical argument of your’s IS meant to lead to a defense of your interpretation of Matthew 25:31-47. By denying the exclusive authority of the human authorial intent over our interpretation, you think you’ll leave room for meanings like those you see in that passage, the supposedly “divinely intended” meanings. You can argue that, even though contextually “the least of these brothers and sisters of mine” refers to Jesus’ followers, you can expand the referents to include ANY suffering person, and thus argue that someone can know Christ without knowing him by name by helping a person in need. Is that a fair presentation?
[/quote]
I actually did not have this passage in mind when this topic came up, you brought it up, I did not, remember that.

I gather, based on the fact that you made your responses on an extremely bent understanding of what I was saying, that this was you whole focus the entire time. It does make sense that you would have to make me look like an utter fool so that what I say therefore has no value. But it required you to completely misrepresent what I said. To focus on tidbits outside the context of what I was saying to mute my points, and therefore claim victory over your interpretation of this passage. To implicate things like when I say the scriptures became more accessible once assembled as a single book, taking that to mean that immediately everybody had a chance to get their hands on it and read it. Such an assertion is absurd at best in that more accessible does not mean immediately accessible en masse. I can’t understand the reason for doing it outside proving I am a nimrod, and thusly have no right to even discuss these lofty matters.

No, that PRIVATE DISCUSSION was in regards ways to know Jesus without Jesus having been revealed to a person, or in some way had no other way of knowing him. Which I had more to go on then just that, and it’s not my own original thought but things posited by good ol’ fasion lofty theologians.

So I see the methodology now. You were trying to head me off at the pass. You were thinking that I was going to use that passage as the center piece of my argument, except you were wrong. I had no intention of using this passage at all. I did intend to use scripture, but very little of it. Mainly only to establish that God is who he says he is, and the judgment is His not ours to make or discern.

My goal was to show you based on linguistics, literary theory, and historical-cultural factors that any positing of additional divine meanings other than those intended by the human authors themselves is pure conjecture. You say this…

My only point was that 1st century interpretations are not the only interpretations of scripture that are correct, matter or valid.

My whole point to you, the whole point of my response, is that the human authors didn’t “interpret” these works; they wrote them. They composed them. They are responsible for them. What they meant by their words is synonymous with the authoritative meaning of these texts. Consequently, any claims you make to “divine intent” beyond those intentions is mere speculation. When it comes to Paul’s writings or the gospels, the authoritative meaning lies in what they meant. You cannot use “inspiration” as an excuse to claim that God put meanings in their the human beings weren’t aware of. That includes Matthew 25:31-47.

Really? So when I say things like ‘writer’s intent’ and ‘writer’s intended meaning’, etc. You take that to mean I am saying the writers are interpreting their own works? Really??

Is it speculation now? So as the Gospel writers clearly understood the bread and wine as the body and blood of Christ, but it was later discerned that no, it’s just a symbol. Is that what the gospel writers thought, or is it something that was reinterpreted later as having been a falsehood for some 1500 years later?

Or when Paul says that women should cover their heads in church, was it Paul’s intent that that should later not happen, that it was just for that time? Who decided that it’s no longer necessary, Paul? The Corinthians? Or was that interpreted later?

Last try - you’re claiming that the doctrine of inspiration leaves room for God to include meanings in Scripture unknown to the human authors. I am saying, on the basis of linguistic and historical factors (including the meaning of inspiration as understood by the earliest Christians), that there is no reason why the existence of separate divine meanings should be presumed. There is no authoritative basis for such an assumption, so any supposedly “divine meanings” are arbitrary. Yes, God did intend the Scriptures to be preserved and to be used by the church throughout time, but that does NOT mean that God included meanings beyond those intended by the biblical author.

A solid example - Matthew 25:40 - "The king will reply, “truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” In the context of Matthew’s gospel, Jesus’ brothers and sisters is a reference to followers of Jesus (see esp. Matthew 12:50, “whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother”). You want to expand the referents from “those who do the will of God by following Christ” to “those who suffer.” My point is that, in the context of Matthew’s gospel, there is NO legitimate basis for doing so. I’m NOT saying that God doesn’t want us to serve those in need outside of the church, but THIS passage (Matt. 25:31-47) does not make that point. It may be (it is theoretically possible) that Jesus considers a gracious deed done for ANYONE in need to be done for him, but Matthew 25:31-47 is ONLY referring to Jesus’ followers, not to suffering people in general, so it’s wrong to use that passage to prove the latter. It may be true; THIS text does not prove it.

Actually, at least in theory, it still does even under protestant scrutiny. For if someone of non-Christian origin does these prescriptions to one of his followers, then he did it to Him. While it may discern the these least are, it does not discriminate the doer, but says ‘who ever’. It seems an odd dichotomy then, and it’s a difference between Catholic and Protestant interpretations which precisely why I was NOT going to use this passage.

The Catholic interpretation is thusly summarized:
“25:40 you did it to me: Jesus identifies himself with all men, especially the poor and afflicted. Thus by serving others we serve Christ; by performing works of mercy we hope to find mercy (Jas 2:1-13). Indeed, Jesus’ own ministry was marked by concern for the disadvantaged (4:23-24; 8:1-17; 11:4-6).”
Which are notations from the Ignatius Study Bible provided by Dr. Scott Hahn and Dr. Curtis Mitch.

So the protestant and catholic interpretations vary greatly, but both are based on study of the scriptures and authors intent. The earliest dating back to at least St. John Chrysostom in 344.

So the earliest interpretations are in line with what is stated in the Ignatius Bible notations. The protestant interpretations where charitable work is for Christians, by Christians came later. Both claim faithfulness to the literal word. You will side with the Protestant interpretation I will side with the Catholic interpretation; it’s got more history behind it.

None of this crap matters…

What does matter is that you were so concerned that I was going to use this passage to make a point that you went to extraordinary measures to head it off. In truth, you had no idea what I was going to say and still don’t. You presumed and assumed to much. You misread and misrepresented what I said in order to get your point across that you believe the a passage in scripture says one thing, while I believe it says another. And you say you can derive author’s intent, yet it differs from earlier interpretations of this scripture, but there is no room for varying interpretations? Then who knew the author’s intent, the early church fathers or the apologists of the reformation? Right here is a prime example of the problem.

I had no intention of using Mt 25:31-47 in the discussion. I did not need it, I did not have to. The point is far simpler then haggling over protestant vs. catholic interpretations or a particular passage. I believed you presumed to know my thoughts better than I did

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

You do notice that most–not all–the examples you cite use theat article when God assumes the objective case?
SO, I guess the interpretation is truly in the realm of context. Elohim means GOd when and where it makes sense; it means lords when and where it makes sense that way, too. (You will note that I was careful to say ha-elohim never means “The God.”)

Here’s some more where God is used as a subject - “God (ha-elohim) put Abraham to the test” (Gen. 22:1); “he (Abraham) set out for the place which God (ha-elohim) had told him” (Gen. 22:2); “May God (ha-elohim) give to you of the dew of heaven” (Gen. 27:28); “God (ha-elohim) in whose ways my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked…” (Gen. 48:15). That last one usually gets translated as “THE God” (see JPS), but that’s enough for now. So yes, it is a matter of context, but in all honesty, I have seen no examples where it means “lords” at all. That is a very uncommon meaning; I could not find it at all in BDB, the standard lexicon for the Hebrew bible. It would more rightly be translated “gods” than “lords.” [/quote]

Maimonides: "I must premise that every Hebrew knows that the term Elohim is a homonym, and denotes God, angels, judges, and the rulers of countries, …(Guide for the Perplexed)

James Strong, listed “angels” and “judges” as possible meanings for elohim with a plural verb in his Strong’s Concordance, and the same is true of many other 17th-20th Century reference works.

In short, Elohim when used in the singular is The Divinity; when used in the plural sense, it is all of the above. I have seen it used in the sense of “lords of” a particular city, but I am not able access my references just now. Trust me on this one.

[Karado]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
Very Interesting.
Jude seemingly alludes to the sexual sins of the Angels anyway, comparing what they did
to the human sexual sins at Sodom…Jude sez the Bad Angels left their “first estate”, their original habitation, a big no-no…they broke the rules, also confirmed in the Book Of Enoch.

Compare “The Book Of The Watchers”, Enoch Chapter 7, to Genesis 6, It’s very similar…it seems to clear this up who the “Sons Of God” really were…they were Angels.
And yes, yes, I know it’s not Scripture, fine, but that doesn’t automatically mean it’s
false either…The Dead Sea Scrolls are the probably the most important find
of the 20th Century.

Enoch 7:1 It happened after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful.

Enoch 7:2 And when the angels, the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamoured of them, saying to each other, Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children.

Enoch 7:3 Then their leader Samyaza said to them; I fear that you may perhaps be indisposed to the performance of this enterprise;

Enoch 7:4 And that I alone shall suffer for so grievous a crime.

Enoch 7:5 But they answered him and said; We all swear;

Enoch 7:6 And bind ourselves by mutual execrations, that we will not change our intention, but execute our projected undertaking.

And so it began…til the deluge, to wipe the resultant hybrids and nasty neandrathals out
of existence…allegedly.

[/quote]

Karado, I thought we already covered this stuff? You are far too preoccupied with these relatively insignificant issues.

There are only two legitimate possibilities; the whole “lines of Seth” theory is ahistorical nonsense. The distinction between the lines of Seth and Cain simply plays no significant role in the text. Either “sons of God” refers to angelic/semi-divine beings, which is far and away the dominant meaning of benai elohim in the Hebrew bible, or sons of God refers to kings, which is a common meaning of parallel phrases in other ANE languages. Either rendering is possible, and the Enochic literature, Jude, and 1-2 Peter are not independent attestations to the same event, but are rather interpretations of Genesis 6. Jude and 1-2 Peter reflect the same tradition of interpretation as the Enochic literature; all of these texts were written several centuries after Genesis.

Why does 1 Enoch 7 look so much like Genesis 6? Simple - 1 Enoch 7, written hundreds of years after Genesis, is rewriting the Genesis account in an attempt to provide an answer to some perplexing questions raised by Genesis 6, such as who the benai elohim were and why they are discussed in the same section as humanity’s evil state. The author of the Book of Watchers answers these questions by interpreting “the sons of God” as angels and interpreting their sin as the one that set the ball rolling with regard to the corruption of humanity. In other words, whereas Paul traces the clear sinfulness of humankind to Adam, the Book of Watchers presents the influence of fallen angels as the cause of humanity’s corruption. This sort of rewriting or expansion of sacred texts was done ALL THE TIME in Second Temple Judaism, and while such texts were not held as authoritative in the same way as the originals, they were highly influential in shaping the way Jews interpreted their sacred texts.

either option could be correct; the support of 1 Enoch or Jude or 1-2 Peter is irrelevant, because 1 Enoch is just one attempt to interpret Genesis 6, and Jude/1-2 Peter reflect that common interpretation. The author of Genesis certainly had a reason for including this anecdote about the Nephilim, but it is lost to us today, and there is NO reason to use it as the basis of your argument for the “death of Neanderthals.” That would never have even crossed the author’s mind.[/quote]

Thanks for clarifying a few things about Jude…interesting.
At least your ‘Angel theory’ Meter has moved toward the center
King Kai…The first time I brought it up, loosely paraphrasing, but I recall you
said I was ‘WAY out of line’ with that theory, now all of a sudden you give it some
possibility, when not long ago you gave that no quarter whatsoever.
Nobody’s perfect, I’m always learning as well, really not a big deal, but I
really appreciate you answering questions in detail.

I ask tough questions anyway, Pat for example believes 100% in the 1917 Fatima
sighting and subsequent “Miracle of the Sun” in Portugal…I believe it
was most likely a satanic deception, Jesus never said he was gonna send his
mother down here for extra-biblical messages.
So, simple question for you King Kai… A simple Yes or No, was the 1917 Sighting
possibly…possibly a satanic deception in your opinion?
I think it was.
I’ve ask pat why he thinks this was true, but has been completely avoiding
answering the question, so maybe you may shed some light, In case there’s
a grander, much more epic “Sighting” in the future that millions may fall for,
but may be satanic as well.

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

You do notice that most–not all–the examples you cite use theat article when God assumes the objective case?
SO, I guess the interpretation is truly in the realm of context. Elohim means GOd when and where it makes sense; it means lords when and where it makes sense that way, too. (You will note that I was careful to say ha-elohim never means “The God.”)

Here’s some more where God is used as a subject - “God (ha-elohim) put Abraham to the test” (Gen. 22:1); “he (Abraham) set out for the place which God (ha-elohim) had told him” (Gen. 22:2); “May God (ha-elohim) give to you of the dew of heaven” (Gen. 27:28); “God (ha-elohim) in whose ways my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked…” (Gen. 48:15). That last one usually gets translated as “THE God” (see JPS), but that’s enough for now. So yes, it is a matter of context, but in all honesty, I have seen no examples where it means “lords” at all. That is a very uncommon meaning; I could not find it at all in BDB, the standard lexicon for the Hebrew bible. It would more rightly be translated “gods” than “lords.” [/quote]

So try Ex 22:8
“For any sinful word, for a bull, for a donkey, for a lamb, for a garment, for any lost article, concerning which he will say that this is it, the plea[s] of both parties shall come to the judges, [and] whoever the judges declare guilty shall pay twofold to his neighbor.”
Elohim occurs twice here, once with the definite article and once without. Both in the plural, and both understood to mean “judges” or “dignitaries.”

Or try Ex 23:13
“Concerning all that I have said to you you shall beware, and the name of the gods of others you shall not mention; it shall not be heard through your mouth.”
Clearly the plural form, and clearly other “gods” are meant and not other “lords.”

Context counts.

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
…
False - I did not say that bereshit was in the construct state. Actually, it is in the absolute state (meaning it is not taking a modifier). If YOU had read Rashi more thoroughly (I have his commentary on the Torah), you would have realized that his argument is that bereshit is in the construct state everywhere ELSE in Scripture (which is also false, as Lev. 2:12), so it should be interpreted as a construct here as well. As I said, that is a false assertion - in both Lev. 2:12 AND here in Genesis 1:1, reshit is in the absolute state.

…

Lol did you even read what I wrote above? Because I said exactly what you said above. reshit on its own usually denotes “first,” but when coupled with the inseparable preposition bet (be-reshit), it denotes a period of time. My point was that in 3 of the 4 cases where bereshit occurs and functions temporally, it is in the construct state, whereas in Genesis 1:1, it is in the absolute state. I read Rashi quite thoroughly; you need to do the same.

[…
[/quote]

I have to say this bothered me. What you say is at odds with what Rashi wrote as a matter of grammar. I cut and paste the most accessible English translation of the pertinent Rashi commentary:

"But if you wish to explain it according to its simple meaning, explain it thus: �¢??At the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth, the earth was astonishing with emptiness, and darkness�¢?�¦and God said, �¢??Let there be light.�¢??�¢?? But Scripture did not come to teach the sequence of the Creation, to say that these came first, for if it came to teach this, it should have written:�¢??At first (�??�?�¸�?�¼�?�¨�?�´�??�?�©�??�??�?�¹�?� �?�¸�??) He created the heavens and the earth,�¢?? for there is no �?�¨�?�µ�??�?�©�?�´�??�??�?�ª in Scripture that is not connected to the following word, [i.e., in the construct state] like (ibid. 27:1):�¢??In the beginning of (�??�?�°�?�¼�?�¨�?�µ�??�?�©�?�´�??�?�ª) the reign of Jehoiakim�¢?? ; (below 10:10)�¢??the beginning of (�?�¨�?�µ�??�?�©�?�´�??�??�?�ª) his reign�¢?? ; (Deut. 18:4)�¢??the first (�?�¨�?�µ�??�?�©�?�´�??�??�?�ª) of your corn.�¢?? Here too, you say �??�?�°�?�¼�?�¨�?�µ�??�?�©�?�´�??�??�?�ª �??�?�¸�?�¼�?�¨�?�¸�?? �??�??�?�¹�??�?�´�??�??, like �??�?�°�?�¼�?�¨�?�µ�??�?�©�?�´�??�??�?�ª �??�?�°�?�¼�?�¨�?�¹�??, in the beginning of creating. And similar to this is,�¢??At the beginning of the Lord�¢??s speaking (�??�?�´�?�¼�??�?�¶�?�¼�?�¨) to Hosea,�¢?? (Hos. 1:2), i.e., at the beginning of the speaking (�??�?�´�?�¼�??�?�¼�??�?�¼�?�¨�??�?�¹) of the Holy One, Blessed be He, to Hosea, �¢??the Lord said to Hosea, etc.�¢??

In short: the absolute case of “at first” is “b’roshanah.” THat is not the word that starts Genesis.
The construct case, which is used in the text, “breshit,” demands a connection to another noun or action, in this case “God’s creating…”

You may believe that it was theologic concerns that caused this back-flipping over a simple verb and a construction,but we agree that the English translation should more appropriately emphasize the first direct action of God as “saying” “(Let there) be light.” Rashi said so, and so did you!

[Karado]

Goodness gracious Dr. Skeptix, WTF are all those letter A’s and symbols and shit?
We’re talking the Bible, but the friggin thing above looks like the Bhagavad Gita.

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]Karado wrote:
Goodness gracious Dr. Skeptix, WTF are all those letter A’s and symbols and shit?
We’re talking the Bible, but the friggin thing above looks like the Bhagavad Gita.
[/quote]

Just explaining Ps 111:10:

“The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord…”

…a phrase which contains two construct forms–one of them being"reshit" (which KingKai thinks should be otherwise in the absolute case)–and a message which, in the whole, is possibly lost on you.

Good luck with the Bhagavad Gita.