My OT class

[i believe in tranquility]

I'm just saying it's not very logical that Jesus was sooo dumb that he coulnd't comprehend not having a "real" father, and so decided to call God his "father".

Ok. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created...
Matt 5:48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father...
6:9 Jesus taught us to pray to "our father, which art in heaven"
Eph. 4:6 One god and father over all.
Heb 12:9 subjectio nunto the Father of spirits

Again thank you.
If you want to insist on the image of Father, and God created us, who is the mother?
You insist on a gender for God, so to make sense with nature, God, according to you is the "Father", so who is the "Mother"?

Well, "he" refers to Elohim. It was from a P source.

WHat is this "P" source dude. I got my sources from my father (yes..biological..lol), who studied the OT and NT obvisouly so he may become a pastor later in his life. He known Greek, Hebrew, and 10 others (which are irrelevent), but most of all he understand the literally construct of the wording between English and Hebrew. So.....No, "he" does not refer to Elohim. Elohim is the Hebrew word for God, not he.

We're still talking about genesis one, which never says adam. Genesis 2, which says adam, does not say we were created in god's image.

You are correct that Genesis one does not talk about Adam, but my response was about Genesis 2 aswell as my previous remarks on Genesis 1.
You are also correct that Genesis 2 does not say we were created in God's image, but what does that have to do with anything...All im saying is that the word in hebrew "Adam" stands for the human race.

A) the bible is synchronic, not diachronic. B) the bible is not complete, so it doesn't include all of the children.

Again, not that Im disagreeing with you but I want to be a little Socratic, so, how do you know that the bible (im speaking of OT: creation sections) is not complete. I know of the "missing books" but those were on the NT.

Anyways are you agreeing with what I said about how the idea of just two (Adam and Eve), is absurd? I hope so, because it makes the most logical sense.

 

[nutshell]

So.....No, "he" does not refer to Elohim. Elohim is the Hebrew word for God, not he.

It is also plural, buddy. Did you daddy teach you that?

 

[Aqualung]

Ok. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

No problem.

If you want to insist on the image of Father, and God created us, who is the mother?
You insist on a gender for God, so to make sense with nature, God, according to you is the "Father", so who is the "Mother"?

His wife.

WHat is this "P" source dude.

It's in the first (?) post of this thread, or very close to there.

I got my sources from my father (yes..biological..lol), who studied the OT and NT obvisouly so he may become a pastor later in his life. He known Greek, Hebrew, and 10 others (which are irrelevent), but most of all he understand the literally construct of the wording between English and Hebrew. So.....No, "he" does not refer to Elohim. Elohim is the Hebrew word for God, not he.

Yes, duh. What I'm saying is that if I say, "You are debating me" then the word "you" refers to "i believe in tranquility". In the same fashion, when they said "he" it was referring to (not translated from) elohim.

You are correct that Genesis one does not talk about Adam, but my response was about Genesis 2 aswell as my previous remarks on Genesis 1.

Oh, well, I thought we were only referring to genesis 1.

You are also correct that Genesis 2 does not say we were created in God's image, but what does that have to do with anything...All im saying is that the word in hebrew "Adam" stands for the human race.

Well, if you had read this thread (like I had assumed you would when I directed you here) you might be able to see why it matters.

Again, not that Im disagreeing with you but I want to be a little Socratic, so, how do you know that the bible (im speaking of OT: creation sections) is not complete. I know of the "missing books" but those were on the NT.

By these scriptural quotes.

Anyways are you agreeing with what I said about how the idea of just two (Adam and Eve), is absurd? I hope so, because it makes the most logical sense.

Sure/

 

[nutshell]

doh!!!!!

 

[Ulver]

Why did God have a flood in the first place?

My class is focusing on this right now. Have to write a two page paper comparing the OT account of the Flood to the Gilgamesh version of the Flood tale, by 4pm today. Time to get to work, hehehe.

Here's another interesting thing that goes along well with teh Adam lived to be 930 thread. Nowadays, when we want to honour people, we'll have documentaries about them. These documentaries will highlight their accomplishments and the obstacles they overcome. But back in the olden days, they couldn't make documentaries. So to honour people, they would say, "So-and-so lived to be 5,000 years!!" and people would understand to mean that they were an honourable person.

Which, doesn't that debunk the early earth creationist arguement that uses the ages of those in Genesis to figure out when creation occured?

 

[Aqualung]

My class is focusing on this right now. Have to write a two page paper comparing the OT account of the Flood to the Gilgamesh version of the Flood tale, by 4pm today. Time to get to work, hehehe.

We have to write a paper about the flood as well. Are you sure you're not in my class? :biglaugh: actually, I don't know what the specific topic is yet, but that would be interesting if it were the same.

Which, doesn't that debunk the early earth creationist arguement that uses the ages of those in Genesis to figure out when creation occured?

Yes, but that is also debunked by the fact that the Bible is synchronic (outside of time) rather than diachronic (presenting things linerally). Of course, you could argue against both (though I would say, rather unsuccessfully).

 

[i believe in tranquility]

nutshell:

It is also plural, buddy. Did you daddy teach you that?

umm..nutshell i had already stated that..lol..no reason to make fun of me.
-------------------------------------
Aqua:

His wife.

And this "wife" is.........

In the same fashion, when they said "he" it was referring to (not translated from) elohim.

English yes, but in Hebrew no.

Oh, well, I thought we were only referring to genesis 1.

Justly, you responed, that is my fualt for not clarifying what I was referring to. My apologies.

It seems like we are in some sort of an agreement....mabye?

I dont know, if we arnt clear on something nutshell or aqua, please state what that is.

 

[dan]

My class is focusing on this right now. Have to write a two page paper comparing the OT account of the Flood to the Gilgamesh version of the Flood tale, by 4pm today. Time to get to work, hehehe.

You know what's funny? Noah is supposed to have landed in the "mountains of Ararat" which are north of Mesopotamia, where the Hittites lived. That area usually has the prefix "uru" on its cities, which is a derivative of Ararat. Interesting that all the flood stories come from the same region. Sumerian, Hurian, Old Babylonian, Hittite and Assyrian account for almost all of the flood stories and they all come from pretty much the same place. Utnapishtim and Noah both send forth a raven and a dove to find land. It's all very fascinating, but the paper is for you to write, so I'll leave it alone.

 

[dan]

WHat is this "P" source dude. I got my sources from my father (yes..biological..lol), who studied the OT and NT obvisouly so he may become a pastor later in his life. He known Greek, Hebrew, and 10 others (which are irrelevent), but most of all he understand the literally construct of the wording between English and Hebrew. So.....No, "he" does not refer to Elohim. Elohim is the Hebrew word for God, not he.

You are correct that Genesis one does not talk about Adam, but my response was about Genesis 2 aswell as my previous remarks on Genesis 1.
You are also correct that Genesis 2 does not say we were created in God's image, but what does that have to do with anything...All im saying is that the word in hebrew "Adam" stands for the human race.

Hope you don't mind if I chime in. I'm getting a Ph.D. in Ancient Languages. I can shed some light on the confusion here. Elohim is masculine and plural. The suffix im makes things plural and masculine. Here's an example: Ani lomed Ivrit. I study Hebrew (first person singular). Atem lo lomdim ivrit. You all do not study Hebrew (the bold shows where the words refer to the plural and the masculine).

Some argue that it represents the plurality of His majesty and glory, others argue that it is like the "royal we", and still others argue that it refers to God and Jesus, A.K.A. the Godhead. Modern Hebrew has its own word for "godhead", Elohoot, but Modern Hebrew has more to do with Arabic than with ancient Hebrew. Elsewhere in the Hebrew bible the word elohim is translated "the gods", and is usually in reference to idols. In the Psalms, however, it calls the faithful "gods," and uses the exact same form of elohim.

Adam can mean "man," "mankind," "human being," or it can be a personal name.

I warn against trying to use a dim, second-hand understanding of Hebrew as conclusive proof of anything in the Bible. There is an astounding amount of subjectivity that goes into translating anything, especially a two thousand year old text in a foreign (and I mean foreign to modern Hebrew) language.

I suggest you go home and study English before you start preaching on the intricacies of any other language.

 

[Aqualung]

Here's a source Jayhawlker gave me.

Friedman, in Commentary on the Torah, writes for Genesis 1-27:

He. In the present age many people choose not to conceive of the deity as male or female. In the Torah, however, there are passages in which one cannot help but understand and translate a divine reference as masculine. The Torah depicts God as male. Rather than impose a present view on an ancient text, I feel bound to leave the masculine references to the deity as they are, although I urge those who study the Torah to contemplate whatthis has meant through the ages from the time of the writing of the Torah to their own respective times.​

 

[Aqualung]

And this "wife" is.........

Some lady. I don't know her.

English yes, but in Hebrew no.

See previous post.

It seems like we are in some sort of an agreement....mabye?

I'm not sure. What was the original question?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Some argue that it represents the plurality of His majesty and glory, others argue that it is like the "royal we", and still others argue that it refers to God and Jesus, A.K.A. the Godhead.

And you argue ... ?

 

[wmam]

H119
אדם
'âdam
aw-dam'
To show blood (in the face), that is, flush or turn rosy: - be (dyed, made) red (ruddy).

 

[Ody]

No, it's at school. The teacher is a presbyterian minister teaching at a jesuit college.

Theres a bias...

 

[dan]

And you argue ... ?

I don't argue. My beliefs are not based solely on scholarly research, so trying to academically argue that what I believe is true is pointless, because it all comes down to my personal experiences with God. In this kind of forum I let people know what different sides have to say about the matter and when they're being presumptuous. Check the next post out for an example of the latter.

 

[dan]

H119
אדם
'âdam
aw-dam'
To show blood (in the face), that is, flush or turn rosy: - be (dyed, made) red (ruddy).

This is an example of someone not understanding Hebrew. Hebrew originally contained no vowels. It still only has vowels in religious texts. Many words have the exact same letters, but mean different things in different circumstances. Teacher (morah), for example, is spelled exactly the same way whether referring to male or female, but they are pronounced differently because of the vowels. You have to understand the context to differentiate, because no one puts vowels in. This guy's transliteration of the word adam is actually the definition of an entirely different word that has the same consonants. Here's a quick list of some of the words in Hebrew that use the same three consonants (aleph, dalet, mem sophit):

man, mankind, human being, Adam, first man, person, wildman, red, to be red, to redden, become red, to blush, flush, lipstick, ruby, redness

 

[Aqualung]

This is once again humans trying to take short cuts to become gods. They want to go to heaven to "make a name for themselves." They want to go to heaven to steal God's power and become the gods themselves. Appearantly, this would have been possible with their unified language and their technology, since God is scared enough to scatter them and confuse their language. This offers a synchronic truth - language and technology are not the way to god. In the end, it doesn't matter how eloquently you can speak, or how persuasivley, or what kind of computer you have, or how technologically advanced our country is. God is no respector of people who want to get to heaven on their own, and make names for themselves this way. You have to do it through him, and with his help.

 

[wmam]

This is an example of someone not understanding Hebrew. Hebrew originally contained no vowels. It still only has vowels in religious texts. Many words have the exact same letters, but mean different things in different circumstances. Teacher (morah), for example, is spelled exactly the same way whether referring to male or female, but they are pronounced differently because of the vowels. You have to understand the context to differentiate, because no one puts vowels in. This guy's transliteration of the word adam is actually the definition of an entirely different word that has the same consonants. Here's a quick list of some of the words in Hebrew that use the same three consonants (aleph, dalet, mem sophit):

man, mankind, human being, Adam, first man, person, wildman, red, to be red, to redden, become red, to blush, flush, lipstick, ruby, redness

Sorry Aqualung.............

Heres an example of someone who assumes to much.

Strong's has the other versions of the word Adam under H120 and H121. I was only showing that, indeed, the word had more than the one or two meanings thus posted.

Shalom

 

[i believe in tranquility]

Some lady. I don't know her.

O so you say the wife of God is a human lady. And she doesnt have a name...and you dont know here. How interesting...

See previous post.

Agains, in ENglish, YES, but in Hebrew NO.

I'm not sure. What was the original question?

Adam and Eve were not 2 people.

--------------------------

dan- Im not disagreeing with your definition of Elohim. I DID SAY that it was plural. There should be not fuss on that. I agree that the word is masculine and plural, BUT:

becaue the word "hand" is feminine in Hebrew, does this mean that all hands are female?
Just because the word has a masculine grammatical construct (word), that doesnt mean that the being that the word represents is male. Bascially your saying that God is male and his hands are female. It makes no sense (dont think that just because you are majoring in ancient languages, that other people dont know anything about the verbal construct of the languages.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This is an example of someone not understanding Hebrew.

man, mankind, human being, Adam, first man, person, wildman, red, to be red, to redden, become red, to blush, flush, lipstick, ruby, redness

Truer words could not have been said.