Genesis 7

JerryL · Sep 13, 2005

Jehova gave us free will.

But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart and he did not listen to them, as the Lord had told Moses. - Exodus 9:12

Jehova gave us free will. He absolutely CANNOT know exactly what will happen.

""I assure you," Jesus said to him, "tonight--before the rooster crows, you will deny Me threetimes!" Matthew 26:34

He's not all knowing in the sense that he knows every little detail about out lives and every single chioce we will make.

There goes all of prophecy.

because if our hearts condemn us, God is greater than our hearts and knows all things. 1Jo 3:20

jewscout · Sep 13, 2005

JerryL said:
I know that you did not. There's no indication he did. We agree on that. What I was pointing out is that the rainbow makes no real sense in the Jewesh legend.

huh? how does it not make sense?

i find this story very fascinating and with different ways of viewing it...for another way check here
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14882

JerryL · Sep 13, 2005

huh? how does it not make sense?

It's arbitrary and unprescedented. Name another time that Jehovia did something similar.

God promised to never again kill all the sinful people? Did anyone tell Sodom?

jewscout · Sep 13, 2005

JerryL said:
It's arbitrary and unprescedented. Name another time that Jehovia did something similar.

God promised to never again kill all the sinful people? Did anyone tell Sodom?

perhaps it is arbitrary and unprescedented...but then He did promise the nation of Israel that if they harkened to His commandments that He would bless them, but if they did not they would be punished

and as far as Sodom goes, G-d did not destroy them by flood if you want to get technical about it, and that's what the rainbow signifies

but i think the story of Noah is more than just a story about a bunch of rain...it has more dimensions to it...

Aqualung · Sep 13, 2005

JerryL said:
But the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart and he did not listen to them, as the Lord had told Moses. - Exodus 9:12

No he didn't. Somewhere along the line there was a mistranslation. The original almost certainly said, "he hardened his heart," and then somewhere along the way someone mistook "he" to be god, not pharoah. The pharoah hardend his own heart.

JerryL said:
""I assure you," Jesus said to him, "tonight--before the rooster crows, you will deny Me threetimes!" Matthew 26:34

That's because he knew peter. He knew that that's how peter would react. But it was peter who chose to actually do it. He could have chosen not to, but jesus knew that the temptation would be such that peter just woudn't resist it.

JerryL said:
God promised to never again kill all the sinful people? Did anyone tell Sodom?

God promised to never wipe out the entire human race. Sodom was one town.

jewscout · Sep 13, 2005

Aqualung said:
No he didn't. Somewhere along the line there was a mistranslation. The original almost certainly said, "he hardened his heart," and then somewhere along the way someone mistook "he" to be god, not pharoah.

well my Tanach has it as G-d harden Pharoh's heart...but the commentary states that pharoh was given the opportunity to repent and release the Hebrews but did not, therefore every 3rd plague He hardened his heart in order to encourage repentance the next go round...but pharoh didn't get the message apparently...

JerryL · Sep 13, 2005

perhaps it is arbitrary and unprescedented...but then He did promise the nation of Israel that if they harkened to His commandments that He would bless them, but if they did not they would be punished

And what eternal symbol did he place in nature over it?

God offers "do this and get this" or "because of this that will happen" a great deal. Give me another example of "I won't do that again" or a natural sign.

and as far as Sodom goes, G-d did not destroy them by flood if you want to get technical about it, and that's what the rainbow signifies

Which is another reason the flood story makes no sense in the context of the Bible. "I promise that next time I kill everyone, it will be with something other than a flood". How, exactly, is this useful or sensical?

jewscout · Sep 13, 2005

JerryL said:
And what eternal symbol did he place in nature over it?

well not in nature but circumcision is a sign of the covenant between G-d and the Jewish people

JerryL said:
God offers "do this and get this" or "because of this that will happen" a great deal. Give me another example of "I won't do that again" or a natural sign.

Which is another reason the flood story makes no sense in the context of the Bible. "I promise that next time I kill everyone, it will be with something other than a flood". How, exactly, is this useful or sensical?

JerryL did you read the article attached to the link i put up?
have you considered at looking at this story from more than this perspective?

JerryL · Sep 13, 2005

No he didn't. Somewhere along the line there was a mistranslation. The original almost certainly said, "he hardened his heart," and then somewhere along the way someone mistook "he" to be god, not pharoah. The pharoah hardend his own heart.

Name your translation.

And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses. Where the tranlation says "LORD"

the actual Hebrew says "hwhy", which is "Jehovia". Would you like me to get you the actual Hebrew symbols?

That's because he knew peter. He knew that that's how peter would react. But it was peter who chose to actually do it. He could have chosen not to, but jesus knew that the temptation would be such that peter just woudn't resist it.

So then he knew exatly what would happen. Or are you claiming that God does not know everyone?

That's because he knew peter. He knew that that's how peter would react. But it was peter who chose to actually do it. He could have chosen not to, but jesus knew that the temptation would be such that peter just woudn't resist it.

The flood did not wipe out the entire human race. Noah, his wife, his kids, and their wives all survived.

JerryL · Sep 13, 2005

well not in nature but circumcision is a sign of the covenant between G-d and the Jewish people

A sign that Jews give themselves that they are set apart. This is common in the Bible. You'll find it from the beards to the clothing rules to circumcision. This is not an enduring sign, in nature, from God, to establish a promise. That's unpresidented.

JerryL did you read the article attached to the link i put up?
have you considered at looking at this story from more than this perspective?

No, I did not. Perhaps you would care to paraphrase.

You've not really shown my why my perspective is wrong.

jewscout · Sep 13, 2005

JerryL said:
A sign that Jews give themselves that they are set apart.

i beleive HaShem refers to circumcision as a sign of the convenant...

JerryL said:
No, I did not. Perhaps you would care to paraphrase.

essentially, w/o getting heavily into the text, it is a criticism of Noah as a leader, that he should have taken the innitiative to save the people, like Abraham tried to do and Moses did. It places the central focus not on the flood but on Noah as a person with shortcomings. I highly suggest reading it, it brings a new perspective on the purpose of the story.

JerryL said:
You've not really shown my why my perspective is wrong.

I'm not trying to...i'm just saying there could be other things going on other than the flood.

Aqualung · Sep 13, 2005

JerryL said:
Name your translation.

No existing translation. It must have been one of the very first translations that made that mistake.

JerryL said:
So then he knew exatly what would happen. Or are you claiming that God does not know everyone?

Well, there's two ways of looking at it. Jesus either knew that Peter woudn't be able to handle the temptation, or he knew that there was a very good chance that he woudn't choose correctly (although not a necessary thing), but he wanted to teach him something.

JerryL · Sep 13, 2005

No existing translation. It must have been one of the very first translations that made that mistake.

LOL. So "the Bible isn't wrong because all errors are errors in the translations; even when we are looking at the original (untranslated) Hebrew"

I would love to let you hear how you sound there.

Since all translations are wrong, where do you get your information from?

Well, there's two ways of looking at it. Jesus either knew that Peter woudn't be able to handle the temptation, or he knew that there was a very good chance that he woudn't choose correctly (although not a necessary thing), but he wanted to teach him something.

If it was only a chance, the Jesus could have turned out to be lying. Are you asserting that prophecy is "a good guess"?

As to knowing, that would be knowing the future which would require that you know the future.

Let me ask you a related question: can God travel through time?

Aqualung · Sep 13, 2005

JerryL said:
LOL. So "the Bible isn't wrong because all errors are errors in the translations; even when we are looking at the original (untranslated) Hebrew"

Oh wow! they have the original? you should notify somebody about that! That's a huge find!

JerryL said:
Since all translations are wrong, where do you get your information from?

continued revelation in these latter days. but it's not all wrong. In fact, most of it is right.

Aqualung · Sep 13, 2005

JerryL said:
If it was only a chance, the Jesus could have turned out to be lying. Are you asserting that prophecy is "a good guess"?

good point. I guess he must have known peter's capacity to withstand temptation, and knew that this temptation would be too much.

JerryL · Sep 13, 2005

Oh wow! they have the original? you should notify somebody about that! That's a huge find!

We have the original language from the original peoples (the nation of Isreal) which has been recorded in the Tanach, yes.

continued revelation in these latter days. but it's not all wrong. In fact, most of it is right.

Such as? And the latter is right ofver the former because of what?

BTW, can God travel through time?

Aqualung · Sep 13, 2005

JerryL said:
We have the original language from the original peoples (the nation of Isreal) which has been recorded in the Tanach, yes.

But we don't have the original time it was written. that's just the way it is

JerryL said:
Such as? And the latter is right ofver the former because of what?

What do you mean, such as? Such as, we still have prophets that receive direct revelation from god.
The latter is right because after so many translations, many having biases and slants, they are corrupted. The latter is right because it was god who said that it was right, not scholars with biases.

JerryL · Sep 13, 2005

But we don't have the original time it was written. that's just the way it is

It wasn't originally written at all.

What do you mean, such as? Such as, we still have prophets that receive direct revelation from god.

An example being... (BTW, the example that corrects the exodus passage would be good, along with how we can verify his validity (unless you doubt the NT is correct when it warns of false prophets).

The latter is right because after so many translations, many having biases and slants, they are corrupted. The latter is right because it was god who said that it was right, not scholars with biases.

So then you are not taking a Biblical stance at all. You are in the same boat with the Muslims, who have called the Bible "divinely inspired" and ignored it in favor of their own prophets.

Let' me see if I can sum up your position: "Genesis 7 is wrong because it's been corrupted, I'm right".

OK. The conversation with you on this topic is not over. If you want to have a discussion of the validity of your religious beliefs and position that's cool. But since you are not a believer in the Bible, I cannot appel to it to have any discussion about it, nor can I imagine any discussion to have with you over Gen 7.

Your assertion seems to be "It happened sort of" and your support "because my prophet said so"; so any discussion would be about your religion, not Christianity / Judaism.

Aqualung · Sep 13, 2005

JerryL said:
It wasn't originally written at all.

Yes. Moses wrote it.

JerryL said:
An example being... (BTW, the example that corrects the exodus passage would be good, along with how we can verify his validity (unless you doubt the NT is correct when it warns of false prophets).

Okay, I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for. spell it out for me.

And of course these prophets aren't false...

JerryL said:
Let' me see if I can sum up your position: "Genesis 7 is wrong because it's been corrupted, I'm right".

all you said wat "genesis 7 is right because it hasn't been corrupted, I'm right." And I thought we were talking about exodus. I don't think I ever said genesis 7 was corrupted.

Aqualung · Sep 13, 2005

JerryL said:
Your assertion seems to be "It happened sort of" and your support "because my prophet said so"; so any discussion would be about your religion, not Christianity / Judaism.

I only said over a completely unrelated discussion of exodus. we can debate genesis 7 if you'd like, but you have yet to do so. I'm just answering what you're talking aobut.

Genesis 7

Well-Known Member

Religious Zionist

Well-Known Member

Religious Zionist

Tasty

Religious Zionist

Well-Known Member

Religious Zionist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Religious Zionist

Tasty

Well-Known Member

Tasty

Tasty

Well-Known Member

Tasty

Well-Known Member

Tasty

Tasty