Posted: 8/8/2026 9:00:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Tech-Com][Edited]
|
I want to offer a different way of reading the opening chapters of Genesis—not as a doctrine I expect anyone to simply accept, but as a question worth testing against Scripture. We naturally assume Genesis 1 describes the creation of the original paradise and that Genesis 2–3 simply continues the same account chronologically. But does the text actually require us to read it that way? One reason to ask is the long-recognized difficulty in reconciling the apparent order of creation in the two accounts. Genesis 1 presents vegetation, then animals, and finally humanity—male and female. Genesis 2 appears to present the man, then vegetation associated with the garden, then the animals being brought before the man, and finally the woman. Attempts can certainly be made to harmonize these sequences, but on a straightforward reading they do not appear to follow the same order. Perhaps that tension is there because something additional is happening. What if we are assuming these chapters describe one continuous chronological sequence when the text is doing something more complex? Might I suggest a few minor translations to spark some additional thought. “The first order of God was the fashioning of the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) Adam is never named in Genesis 1. Now compare that with Genesis 2:4: “This is the Bible of the genealogy [Genesis] of the heavens and the earth, when they came into being, in the day God made them.” Notice what this declaration tells the reader: this “day,” and the making of the heavens and the earth associated with it, introduces the account of the life that immediately follows in Chapter 2—the vegetation, Adam, the garden, the animals, and the woman. Not made over six days, but associated with a single day! Can we really assume Genesis 1 describes the creation of the original paradise? Or could it describe the ordering of the cosmos following Adam’s fall? Notice how much of Genesis 1 involves separation and ordering. Light is separated from darkness. The waters above are separated from the waters below. Heaven and earth are distinguished. Rather than merely describing things coming into existence, could Genesis 1 be describing the ordering and division of a cosmos that already stands in need of separation? Consider also that Genesis 1 already contains darkness, and on the fourth day the lesser luminary is appointed “to rule the night” (Genesis 1:16). Night has already been associated with darkness (1:5). If this points toward the cosmic authority later understood as the Prince of Darkness, then the need for Christ is already present within the order Genesis 1 describes. That makes the prophecy concerning Jesus especially interesting: “The people walking in darkness have seen a great light.” (Isaiah 9:2) And Jesus declares: “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness.” (John 8:12) Matthew 1:1 then echoes the language of Genesis 2:4: “The Bible of the genealogy [Genesis] of Jesus Christ.” So whose genealogy begins in Genesis 2, if we understand the language in the same manner as Matthew 1:1? Paul gives us another reason to consider the possibility. He says: “The spiritual was not first, but the natural, and then the spiritual.” He then contrasts the first anthropos, from the earth, with the second anthropos, from heaven (1 Corinthians 15:46–47), and identifies Adam as the first anthropos and Christ as the last Adam (15:45). Perhaps, then, the apparent conflict between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is not something that needs to be forced into a single creation sequence. Perhaps something additional is happening between these accounts. Genesis 1 may not be describing the original paradise at all. It may instead describe the ordering of the first, natural cosmos following the fall—a divided world of heaven and earth, light and darkness, waters above and waters below. If so, the Gospel becomes an extraordinary reversal: into the world ruled by darkness comes the Light of the World; into the earthly order comes the anthropos from heaven; and through the last Adam comes not merely a return to what was, but a new creation. “The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” With Love, Jesse |
|
You realize that the chapters and verses were not introduced until only a few hundred years ago? They mean nothing to the actual text. This is extremely obvious by the fact that Genesis 1 stops at the end of day 6 and chapter two picks up at the beginning of day 7. Additionally, not naming Adam or mentioning Eve doesn't mean that they weren't the people God was talking to in Genesis 1. Who else would He be telling to be fruitful and multiply, if not the first man and woman? Regularly things are presented as: First, generic overview, second, additional details about what is described in the overview. Genesis 2:4 asserts this is correct if we read it as 2:4 is speaking of what is said prior to it (Gen 1:1-2:3). No single word in 1:1 can be accurately translated as "order". Genesis also does not equal genealogy. Very different words. Where did you get this idea from, if you don't mind sharing? The entire Bible is also about division and separation. So while I see your point, and it is correct, I believe you've narrowed the scope greatly, if I'm understanding you correctly. While Paul does compare Adam and Jesus, I think you're missing part of the comparison. He is the better Adam. He (Jesus) is also compared to Isaac, Noah, Moses, and the list goes on. It's more about Him being the perfect example of each "type" the others named above were examples of. While I agree with your end statement, about the reversal, I disagree with your major points about Genesis. We do also become a new creation, while Adam was able to directly commune with God the Father, we now as believers in Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God our Savior have His Holy Spirit dwelling within us and can once again directly communicate with Yaweh! How the ancient Israelite's would have longed for this! Hallelu-Yah! I apologize if I come off harsh, I don't mean to. I enjoy posts like yours because it gets me reading and thinking about a question I've not heard before. I am most interested in where you got your "translation" bit from, unless you were using that as an example, a-la dynamic equivalent style. |
|
Originally Posted By CJ47: You realize that the chapters and verses were not introduced until only a few hundred years ago? They mean nothing to the actual text. This is extremely obvious by the fact that Genesis 1 stops at the end of day 6 and chapter two picks up at the beginning of day 7. Additionally, not naming Adam or mentioning Eve doesn't mean that they weren't the people God was talking to in Genesis 1. Who else would He be telling to be fruitful and multiply, if not the first man and woman? Regularly things are presented as: First, generic overview, second, additional details about what is described in the overview. Genesis 2:4 asserts this is correct if we read it as 2:4 is speaking of what is said prior to it (Gen 1:1-2:3). No single word in 1:1 can be accurately translated as "order". Genesis also does not equal genealogy. Very different words. Where did you get this idea from, if you don't mind sharing? The entire Bible is also about division and separation. So while I see your point, and it is correct, I believe you've narrowed the scope greatly, if I'm understanding you correctly. While Paul does compare Adam and Jesus, I think you're missing part of the comparison. He is the better Adam. He (Jesus) is also compared to Isaac, Noah, Moses, and the list goes on. It's more about Him being the perfect example of each "type" the others named above were examples of. While I agree with your end statement, about the reversal, I disagree with your major points about Genesis. We do also become a new creation, while Adam was able to directly commune with God the Father, we now as believers in Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God our Savior have His Holy Spirit dwelling within us and can once again directly communicate with Yaweh! How the ancient Israelite's would have longed for this! Hallelu-Yah! I apologize if I come off harsh, I don't mean to. I enjoy posts like yours because it gets me reading and thinking about a question I've not heard before. I am most interested in where you got your "translation" bit from, unless you were using that as an example, a-la dynamic equivalent style. “Genesis 1:1 begins en archē—a Greek expression normally translated ‘in the beginning,’ though archē can also carry the sense of primacy, rule, or principality. What follows is strikingly an account of God ordering the cosmos.” archē * beginning/origin * first place or first position * rule/government * authority * principality/ruling power So my translation to consider is invoking the meaning of the word in relation to what is occurring, and also my study of Philo and how He understood the order of things based on how he read the Greek text. As for Genesis: Matthew 1:1 and Genesis 2:4 both use the word Genesis. Matthew demonstrates that “genealogy” is the legitimate contextual sense of that word since He is paralleling Genesis 2:4 as the beginning of a New Creation. As for the order, I looked to past accepted verses to see what was believed. The common reading of chapters 1-3 has significant issues with the order of creation, but this framework I am suggesting does not, which at the very least demonstrates that in the end the ways of God can prevail beyond the issues we think we see. “O sovereign Lord, did you not speak at the beginning when you planted the earth—and that without help—and commanded the dust and it gave you Adam, a lifeless body? Yet he was the creation of your hands, and you breathed into him the breath of life, and he was made alive in your presence. And you led him into the garden that your right hand had planted before the earth appeared. (2 Esdras 3:4-6) That indicate past generations believed Adam’s creation occurred at the very least before dry land ever appeared. My right hand (Jesus) spread out the heavens; (Isaiah 48:13) So I have found evidence for this order God Plants Paradise God Plants Earth God Commands Dust The dust gives forth Adam God gives Adam life Adam is led into Paradise Animals are made Woman is made after a great time of longing Transgression occurs Adam returns to from where He was taken The arrangement of the fashionings becomes necessary Chapter 1 never mentions Adam, so why do we assume the man and woman created on Day 6 refers to Adam. Paul speaks of the creation of multiple anthropos. If you read the LXX there may even be an additional anthropos mentioned! Or creation of Heaven and Earth is occurring in parallel, and each has its own geneology? The most direct literal reading indicates the creation of two anthropos in Genesis 2 And Theos planted a garden in Eden, in the east, where He placed the anthropos He had formed. (Genesis 2:8) Then the LORD Theos took the anthropos he had formed and placed him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate and keep it. (Genesis 2:15) |
|
Ascension has an upcoming study program that might cover your interests. The online access to it is $7.95 https://ascensionpress.com/pages/program/genesis-from-creation-to-covenant |
|
Originally Posted By TangoFoxtrot: Ascension has an upcoming study program that might cover your interests. The online access to it is $7.95 https://ascensionpress.com/pages/program/genesis-from-creation-to-covenant I’ll take a look - Thank You |
|
Originally Posted By Tech-Com: "Genesis 1:1 begins en arch a Greek expression normally translated 'in the beginning,' though arch can also carry the sense of primacy, rule, or principality. What follows is strikingly an account of God ordering the cosmos." arch * beginning/origin * first place or first position * rule/government * authority * principality/ruling power So my translation to consider is invoking the meaning of the word in relation to what is occurring, and also my study of Philo and how He understood the order of things based on how he read the Greek text. As for Genesis: Matthew 1:1 and Genesis 2:4 both use the word Genesis. Matthew demonstrates that "genealogy" is the legitimate contextual sense of that word since He is paralleling Genesis 2:4 as the beginning of a New Creation. As for the order, I looked to past accepted verses to see what was believed. The common reading of chapters 1-3 has significant issues with the order of creation, but this framework I am suggesting does not, which at the very least demonstrates that in the end the ways of God can prevail beyond the issues we think we see. "O sovereign Lord, did you not speak at the beginning when you planted the earth and that without help and commanded the dust and it gave you Adam, a lifeless body? Yet he was the creation of your hands, and you breathed into him the breath of life, and he was made alive in your presence. And you led him into the garden that your right hand had planted before the earth appeared. (2 Esdras 3:4-6) That indicate past generations believed Adam's creation occurred at the very least before dry land ever appeared. My right hand (Jesus) spread out the heavens; (Isaiah 48:13) So I have found evidence for this order God Plants Paradise God Plants Earth God Commands Dust The dust gives forth Adam God gives Adam life Adam is led into Paradise Animals are made Woman is made after a great time of longing Transgression occurs Adam returns to from where He was taken The arrangement of the fashionings becomes necessary Chapter 1 never mentions Adam, so why do we assume the man and woman created on Day 6 refers to Adam. Paul speaks of the creation of multiple anthropos. If you read the LXX there may even be an additional anthropos mentioned! Or creation of Heaven and Earth is occurring in parallel, and each has its own geneology? The most direct literal reading indicates the creation of two anthropos in Genesis 2 And Theos planted a garden in Eden, in the east, where He placed the anthropos He had formed. (Genesis 2:8) Then the LORD Theos took the anthropos he had formed and placed him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate and keep it. (Genesis 2:15) |
|
Originally Posted By jaqufrost: Your use of the Greek is part of what is confusing you. Genesis 1 and 2 are written in Hebrew. In Genesis 1, the generic form of God is used. In Genesis 2:4 where the 2nd story begins you can see that Yahweh is used. When reading it in most english translations you can tell it's Yahweh because they use the LORD - and LORD is capitalized indicating the original Hebrew used the word Yahweh and not the more generic El. Originally Posted By jaqufrost: Originally Posted By Tech-Com: "Genesis 1:1 begins en arch a Greek expression normally translated 'in the beginning,' though arch can also carry the sense of primacy, rule, or principality. What follows is strikingly an account of God ordering the cosmos." arch * beginning/origin * first place or first position * rule/government * authority * principality/ruling power So my translation to consider is invoking the meaning of the word in relation to what is occurring, and also my study of Philo and how He understood the order of things based on how he read the Greek text. As for Genesis: Matthew 1:1 and Genesis 2:4 both use the word Genesis. Matthew demonstrates that "genealogy" is the legitimate contextual sense of that word since He is paralleling Genesis 2:4 as the beginning of a New Creation. As for the order, I looked to past accepted verses to see what was believed. The common reading of chapters 1-3 has significant issues with the order of creation, but this framework I am suggesting does not, which at the very least demonstrates that in the end the ways of God can prevail beyond the issues we think we see. "O sovereign Lord, did you not speak at the beginning when you planted the earth and that without help and commanded the dust and it gave you Adam, a lifeless body? Yet he was the creation of your hands, and you breathed into him the breath of life, and he was made alive in your presence. And you led him into the garden that your right hand had planted before the earth appeared. (2 Esdras 3:4-6) That indicate past generations believed Adam's creation occurred at the very least before dry land ever appeared. My right hand (Jesus) spread out the heavens; (Isaiah 48:13) So I have found evidence for this order God Plants Paradise God Plants Earth God Commands Dust The dust gives forth Adam God gives Adam life Adam is led into Paradise Animals are made Woman is made after a great time of longing Transgression occurs Adam returns to from where He was taken The arrangement of the fashionings becomes necessary Chapter 1 never mentions Adam, so why do we assume the man and woman created on Day 6 refers to Adam. Paul speaks of the creation of multiple anthropos. If you read the LXX there may even be an additional anthropos mentioned! Or creation of Heaven and Earth is occurring in parallel, and each has its own geneology? The most direct literal reading indicates the creation of two anthropos in Genesis 2 And Theos planted a garden in Eden, in the east, where He placed the anthropos He had formed. (Genesis 2:8) Then the LORD Theos took the anthropos he had formed and placed him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate and keep it. (Genesis 2:15) I look at both the Greek and Hebrew, but I give considerable weight to the Septuagint because it is a pre-Christian witness to the Old Testament text. Although the Hebrew textual tradition itself is older, the Septuagint predates our complete Masoretic codices by many centuries and preserves readings that were already in circulation before Christ. The apostles and New Testament writers frequently quote the Old Testament in forms that correspond closely to the Greek Septuagint, sometimes even where its wording differs from the later Masoretic Text. The Dead Sea Scrolls also demonstrate that some of these differences cannot simply be dismissed as Greek mistranslations, because ancient Hebrew manuscripts sometimes support readings reflected in the Septuagint. |
|
Originally Posted By Tech-Com: I look at both the Greek and Hebrew, but I give considerable weight to the Septuagint because it is a pre-Christian witness to the Old Testament text. Although the Hebrew textual tradition itself is older, the Septuagint predates our complete Masoretic codices by many centuries and preserves readings that were already in circulation before Christ. The apostles and New Testament writers frequently quote the Old Testament in forms that correspond closely to the Greek Septuagint, sometimes even where its wording differs from the later Masoretic Text. The Dead Sea Scrolls also demonstrate that some of these differences cannot simply be dismissed as Greek mistranslations, because ancient Hebrew manuscripts sometimes support readings reflected in the Septuagint. |
|
Originally Posted By jaqufrost: What is your opinion on the Septuagint's version of Daniel, such as the story of Susannah and Bel and the Dragon? Originally Posted By jaqufrost: Originally Posted By Tech-Com: I look at both the Greek and Hebrew, but I give considerable weight to the Septuagint because it is a pre-Christian witness to the Old Testament text. Although the Hebrew textual tradition itself is older, the Septuagint predates our complete Masoretic codices by many centuries and preserves readings that were already in circulation before Christ. The apostles and New Testament writers frequently quote the Old Testament in forms that correspond closely to the Greek Septuagint, sometimes even where its wording differs from the later Masoretic Text. The Dead Sea Scrolls also demonstrate that some of these differences cannot simply be dismissed as Greek mistranslations, because ancient Hebrew manuscripts sometimes support readings reflected in the Septuagint. I don’t have any meaningful thoughts on the story. What are your thoughts? I will say I understand the meaning of dragon differently than the mythological creature as I think the word translates to “Seeing One” and probably relates to the eyes that watch for our sin and lead to the accusations. |
|
Originally Posted By Tech-Com: I don't have any meaningful thoughts on the story. What are your thoughts? I will say I understand the meaning of dragon differently than the mythological creature as I think the word translates to "Seeing One" and probably relates to the eyes that watch for our sin and lead to the accusations. |
|
Originally Posted By jaqufrost: I think they were cut from the protestant translations for a reason. They weren't original and certainly speak to whether or not the translators of the Septuagint were inspired. Originally Posted By jaqufrost: Originally Posted By Tech-Com: I don't have any meaningful thoughts on the story. What are your thoughts? I will say I understand the meaning of dragon differently than the mythological creature as I think the word translates to "Seeing One" and probably relates to the eyes that watch for our sin and lead to the accusations. I don’t think it’s necessary for the writers of the Septuagint to be inspired, if they translated what was available to them regardless of any agenda it is a trustworthy resource. In the same manner there are many who claim the KJV is the inspired English translation, yet when it was published in 1611 there were 14 additional books published with it, and remained so for hundreds of years. We know very little about how the masoretic text was created other than it was many centuries after Jesus Christ. I think it is safe to assume these Jewish Rabbi were not Christian and if their verses do not match New Testament quotes, how can they be considered any more inspired those Greeks whose work predates them by 1000years? |
|
Originally Posted By Tech-Com: I don't think it's necessary for the writers of the Septuagint to be inspired, if they translated what was available to them regardless of any agenda it is a trustworthy resource. In the same manner there are many who claim the KJV is the inspired English translation, yet when it was published in 1611 there were 14 additional books published with it, and remained so for hundreds of years. We know very little about how the masoretic text was created other than it was many centuries after Jesus Christ. I think it is safe to assume these Jewish Rabbi were not Christian and if their verses do not match New Testament quotes, how can they be considered any more inspired those Greeks whose work predates them by 1000years? |
|
Originally Posted By Tech-Com: One reason to ask is the long-recognized difficulty in reconciling the apparent order of creation in the two accounts. Genesis 1 presents vegetation, then animals, and finally humanity male and female. Genesis 2 appears to present the man, then vegetation associated with the garden, then the animals being brought before the man, and finally the woman. Attempts can certainly be made to harmonize these sequences, but on a straightforward reading they do not appear to follow the same order The Torah: Genesis' Two Creation Accounts Compiled and Interpreted as One The Tiberian/Pumbeditan Masters of Tradition ("Massoretes") only created peer-reviewed diacritical notations (Niqqud) to establish grammar, pronunciation, and cantillation marks for singing. They didn't invent a new Torah. The rest of the Christian tradition you spoke of and your holding to any number of backwritten later versions of a reconstructed Septuagint that maybe has unicorns and knights slaying dragons is all your guys' thing, depending on the creed. |
|
Originally Posted By PvtCowboy: What you're seeing is redaction (interweaved) of two historic traditions of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Judean Kingdom, thought to be enscribed when refugees from the Northern fled south to Judea and a unified cultural narrative was needed. The Torah: Genesis' Two Creation Accounts Compiled and Interpreted as One The Tiberian/Pumbeditan Masters of Tradition ("Massoretes") only created peer-reviewed diacritical notations (Niqqud) to establish grammar, pronunciation, and cantillation marks for singing. They didn't invent a new Torah. The rest of the Christian tradition you spoke of and your holding to any number of backwritten later versions of a reconstructed Septuagint that maybe has unicorns and knights slaying dragons is all your guys' thing, depending on the creed. Originally Posted By PvtCowboy: Originally Posted By Tech-Com: One reason to ask is the long-recognized difficulty in reconciling the apparent order of creation in the two accounts. Genesis 1 presents vegetation, then animals, and finally humanity male and female. Genesis 2 appears to present the man, then vegetation associated with the garden, then the animals being brought before the man, and finally the woman. Attempts can certainly be made to harmonize these sequences, but on a straightforward reading they do not appear to follow the same order The Torah: Genesis' Two Creation Accounts Compiled and Interpreted as One The Tiberian/Pumbeditan Masters of Tradition ("Massoretes") only created peer-reviewed diacritical notations (Niqqud) to establish grammar, pronunciation, and cantillation marks for singing. They didn't invent a new Torah. The rest of the Christian tradition you spoke of and your holding to any number of backwritten later versions of a reconstructed Septuagint that maybe has unicorns and knights slaying dragons is all your guys' thing, depending on the creed. Can you identify a Church Father from the first few centuries who actually argued that the Hebrew text used by the Jews should be preferred to the Septuagint as the Church’s Old Testament? What amount of original Hebrew writing even existed? I can readily find early Christians using and defending the Septuagint. Justin Martyr even argues against Jewish objections to particular Septuagint readings. Origen learned Hebrew and compared the Hebrew manuscripts with the Septuagint in his Hexapla, so Christians certainly knew that textual differences existed. But even Origen defended the Scriptures received by the churches rather than simply replacing them with the Jewish Hebrew readings. So do you place more faith in the works of those who actively reject Jesus Christ, and who the earliest Church fathers viewed as producing translations with convenient attacks on Christology? |
|
Originally Posted By Tech-Com: Can you identify a Church Father from the first few centuries who actually argued that the Hebrew text used by the Jews should be preferred to the Septuagint as the Church's Old Testament? But even Origen defended the Scriptures received by the churches rather than simply replacing them with the Jewish Hebrew readings. Originally Posted By Tech-Com: Can you identify a Church Father from the first few centuries who actually argued that the Hebrew text used by the Jews should be preferred to the Septuagint as the Church's Old Testament? But even Origen defended the Scriptures received by the churches rather than simply replacing them with the Jewish Hebrew readings. If you accept late 4th Century CE then its Jerome, obviously. He explicitly argued the superiority of the Hebrew text over whatever (now lost) Greek 'Septuagint' translations of Torah existed in his time. The realist in him knew that Christendom only understood Greek and early Latin so he permissibly allowed use of the many 'Septuagints' floating about only in cases where they didn't conflict with Hebrew. The trouble here was how to establish authoritative control to do that where effectively zero Christians were literate in Hebrew and even overwhelmingly their own native languages, much less the Church's evolving ecclesiastical Latin. Now, Jerome was only commissioned to define a translation, not to enforce it. And it wasn't enforced. That authority only came 1200 years later in the High Middle Ages when the Church adopted his version. But Jerome was a recognized Doctor of the Church and personally appointed secretary of the Pope in Rome, so his separate holding about the superiority of Hebrew over Greek was acknowledged by the Church's network of nerdy scribal monks cloistered away in distant abbeys with their precious manuscripts, much of which they worked to conceal. By then Christendom's many early violent schisms had reached a crescendo. Secondly, *if* you consider him a Church father, I'd also point a lesser extent to an earlier fellow Origen of Alexandria who migrated to Caesarea to flee the Roman persecution he was ultimately unable to avoid. Remember that he used Hebrew with a controversial mission to correct (or at least Apologetically smooth over) the comical corruptions in the Greek translations of Hebrew scripture and he was certainly now living in the right place to learn it. Origen never states who taught him Hebrew (there are fanciful unsupported traditions in the Church about this) but his work seems to show it was Jewish sages in Caesarea who did so. Therefore he had gone to the source. There's evidence that he clumsily preserved into Greek at least one alliterative word play sequence from Torah that was misunderstood/mistranslated in Koine Greek by whomever wrote the pseudepigraphic author(s) of the Synoptic gospels. He couldn't have done that without a Jewish Hebrew teacher and at the same time its evidence that the alleged apostolic accounts curiously skipped over it. Though he was quite influential in his lifetime, the Church much later on steamrolled over Origen's scholarship by denouncing him as Arian after his death and finally branding him and his writings heretical. Jerome himself helped Origen's post-mortem persecution along and today its quite debatable how much of the prolific Origen's works are genuine and not militant political revisionism by both the Roman and Eastern churches. You can thank Arab scholars who surreptitiously traded banned manuscripts of antiquity with those cloistered monks I mentioned earlier. That there even is an existing fragmental Hexapla attributed to Origen is testimony to preservation of his works outside and despite the Church. If the early Church had all their ducks in a row regarding a solid coherent Greek translation of Torah then there wouldn't have existed a multi-century long early effort to correct the corrupted Greek versions floating about beginning with Origen, then hundreds of years later Jerome's recieved Papal commission in creating an interlineal work of Hebrew to Greek-influenced ecclesiastical Latin word for word, and adding to the textual variances that looks like an ancestral family tree of European nobility. And they wouldn't have banned and burnt the works of Origen the declared heretic. Open a lot of "Septuagint"/"LXX" printed versions and you'll possibly see a statement along the lines of "This, uh, ain't really the Septuagint that the apostles used". Anyone who recovers one genuinely dated before the alleged time of Jesus of Nazareth and his followers of The Way would become a worldwide sensation. So do you place more faith in the works of those who actively reject Jesus Christ(?) |
|
Originally Posted By PvtCowboy: First few centuries, eh? Why the limitation I wonder. Anyway, this will be long. If you accept late 4th Century CE then its Jerome, obviously. He explicitly argued the superiority of the Hebrew text over whatever (now lost) Greek 'Septuagint' translations of Torah existed in his time. The realist in him knew that Christendom only understood Greek and early Latin so he permissibly allowed use of the many 'Septuagints' floating about only in cases where they didn't conflict with Hebrew. The trouble here was how to establish authoritative control to do that where effectively zero Christians were literate in Hebrew and even overwhelmingly their own native languages, much less the Church's evolving ecclesiastical Latin. Now, Jerome was only commissioned to define a translation, not to enforce it. And it wasn't enforced. That authority only came 1200 years later in the High Middle Ages when the Church adopted his version. But Jerome was a recognized Doctor of the Church and personally appointed secretary of the Pope in Rome, so his separate holding about the superiority of Hebrew over Greek was acknowledged by the Church's network of nerdy scribal monks cloistered away in distant abbeys with their precious manuscripts, much of which they worked to conceal. By then Christendom's many early violent schisms had reached a crescendo. Secondly, *if* you consider him a Church father, I'd also point a lesser extent to an earlier fellow Origen of Alexandria who migrated to Caesarea to flee the Roman persecution he was ultimately unable to avoid. Remember that he used Hebrew with a controversial mission to correct (or at least Apologetically smooth over) the comical corruptions in the Greek translations of Hebrew scripture and he was certainly now living in the right place to learn it. Origen never states who taught him Hebrew (there are fanciful unsupported traditions in the Church about this) but his work seems to show it was Jewish sages in Caesarea who did so. Therefore he had gone to the source. There's evidence that he clumsily preserved into Greek at least one alliterative word play sequence from Torah that was misunderstood/mistranslated in Koine Greek by whomever wrote the pseudepigraphic author(s) of the Synoptic gospels. He couldn't have done that without a Jewish Hebrew teacher and at the same time its evidence that the alleged apostolic accounts curiously skipped over it. Though he was quite influential in his lifetime, the Church much later on steamrolled over Origen's scholarship by denouncing him as Arian after his death and finally branding him and his writings heretical. Jerome himself helped Origen's post-mortem persecution along and today its quite debatable how much of the prolific Origen's works are genuine and not militant political revisionism by both the Roman and Eastern churches. You can thank Arab scholars who surreptitiously traded banned manuscripts of antiquity with those cloistered monks I mentioned earlier. That there even is an existing fragmental Hexapla attributed to Origen is testimony to preservation of his works outside and despite the Church. If the early Church had all their ducks in a row regarding a solid coherent Greek translation of Torah then there wouldn't have existed a multi-century long early effort to correct the corrupted Greek versions floating about beginning with Origen, then hundreds of years later Jerome's recieved Papal commission in creating an interlineal work of Hebrew to Greek-influenced ecclesiastical Latin word for word, and adding to the textual variances that looks like an ancestral family tree of European nobility. And they wouldn't have banned and burnt the works of Origen the declared heretic. Open a lot of "Septuagint"/"LXX" printed versions and you'll possibly see a statement along the lines of "This, uh, ain't really the Septuagint that the apostles used". Anyone who recovers one genuinely dated before the alleged time of Jesus of Nazareth and his followers of The Way would become a worldwide sensation. Oh, of course. "Faith" really isn't in my vocabulary any more than the words "Grace" or "Salvation" are. But I think I understand your meaning. So you do not have an understanding of the definition of 'faith'? Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah? I believe Jesus is who He says He is. He has revealed himself to me personally. I met Him at the cross (the revelation of the cross). It is true, He is alive! I trust Him. Isaiah 44:6 “Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me. Isaiah 48:12 “Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called; I am He, I am the first, I am also the last. Revelation 1:17-18 When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades. I do not understand the Hebrew or the Koine Greek, maybe you do? I looked this up; Genesis 15:6, it may not even work posting in the editor but I'll give it a go. How do you translate this to my English language: Bereishit וְהֶאֱמִן בַּיהוָה וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ לּוֹ צְדָקָה PvtCowboy Should you have any questions, please, you can PM me, I'm open for discussion. Have a happy day. |
USMC 85-'93 Amphibious YAT-YAS
|
Originally Posted By Bishop3: So you do not have an understanding of the definition of 'faith'? Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah? Originally Posted By Bishop3: So you do not have an understanding of the definition of 'faith'? Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah? I think I understand the meaning of Faith as Christians use it. In Christian-flavored English 'faith' is a static noun that one possesses a belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority. A reliance on testimony. (Collaborative International Dictionary of English) The word 'Faith' was chosen by your translators in all of your cited verse to stand in for the Hebrew word 'Emunah' which is not a Yes or No proposition. In Biblical Hebrew, 'emunah' derives from the root word 'Uman', which means an artisan or practitioner. In Modern Hebrew it means 'exercise'. Contextually being someone who's committed to cultivation and nurturing of a practice. I've highlighted this in orange because it'll make sense later on below. See, that's the big glaring issue with translations of all kinds: Someone else has chosen understandable words, thoughts, meanings, and dogma for your consumption. It's someone else's understandings for you. The translator is the one who becomes your historically reliable authority. So no, I don't have a 'faith' under your understandable term of belief. I practice Emunah. The itinerant preacher from Nazareth plays no part in it. I do not understand the Hebrew or the Koine Greek, maybe you do? I looked this up; Genesis 15:6, it may not even work posting in the editor but I'll give it a go. How do you translate this to my English language:
Why 'practiced' and not 'believed', plainly? You can see that in Bereshit (Genesis) - Chapter 15 that what's being discussed here is sacrifice because it immediately continues with (the LORD) instructing Avram (later to become "Abraham") to bring forth three calves, three goats, three rams, a turtle dove, and a young pigeon. All of these being the sacrifices for the forthcoming transgression atonement types in what will become the altar sacrifices in the later age. The practice here is sacrifice, not explicitly belief: Avram practices sacrifice, the LORD makes record of it. This illustrates the exemplified problem with the Christian method of lifting disconnected verse from its broader context and plopping it down on the table as a standalone statement. What's often lost is 'Who is speaking?', 'What's being spoken about?', 'To whom?' And so much more that I explained earlier with a string of selected translated words outside of the original language that lose the meaning, the wordplay, the poetry, the general fit, the melody, the tone, and the wisdom from the original. Full of words that don't quite fit so the translators hammered them in to fit and contextually reused them later making an even bigger mess. Or words are redacted out by classic editors because there's no viable descriptive word in Koine Greek to the Latins to pre-Renaissance English to Korean. |
|
Originally Posted By PvtCowboy: I think I understand the meaning of Faith as Christians use it. In Christian-flavored English 'faith' is a static noun that one possesses a belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority. A reliance on testimony. (Collaborative International Dictionary of English) The word 'Faith' was chosen by your translators in all of your cited verse to stand in for the Hebrew word 'Emunah' which is not a Yes or No proposition. In Biblical Hebrew, 'emunah' derives from the root word 'Uman', which means an artisan or practitioner. In Modern Hebrew it means 'exercise'. Contextually being someone who's committed to cultivation and nurturing of a practice. I've highlighted this in orange because it'll make sense later on below. See, that's the big glaring issue with translations of all kinds: Someone else has chosen understandable words, thoughts, meanings, and dogma for your consumption. It's someone else's understandings for you. The translator is the one who becomes your historically reliable authority. So no, I don't have a 'faith' under your understandable term of belief. I practice Emunah. The itinerant preacher from Nazareth plays no part in it. Arfcom apparently disallows extended language support in its basic WYSIWYG editor support for non-paying members, so your Hebrew string won't show in my reply. Otherwise I could walk you through each Hebrew word in the verse interlineally to demonstrate how I'd interpret for you. I can try with phonetics:
Why 'practiced' and not 'believed', plainly? You can see that in Bereshit (Genesis) - Chapter 15 that what's being discussed here is sacrifice because it immediately continues with (the LORD) instructing Avram (later to become "Abraham") to bring forth three calves, three goats, three rams, a turtle dove, and a young pigeon. All of these being the sacrifices for the forthcoming transgression atonement types in what will become the altar sacrifices in the later age. The practice here is sacrifice, not explicitly belief: Avram practices sacrifice, the LORD makes record of it. This illustrates the exemplified problem with the Christian method of lifting disconnected verse from its broader context and plopping it down on the table as a standalone statement. What's often lost is 'Who is speaking?', 'What's being spoken about?', 'To whom?' And so much more that I explained earlier with a string of selected translated words outside of the original language that lose the meaning, the wordplay, the poetry, the general fit, the melody, the tone, and the wisdom from the original. Full of words that don't quite fit so the translators hammered them in to fit and contextually reused them later making an even bigger mess. Or words are redacted out by classic editors because there's no viable descriptive word in Koine Greek to the Latins to pre-Renaissance English to Korean. Originally Posted By PvtCowboy: Originally Posted By Bishop3: So you do not have an understanding of the definition of 'faith'? Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah? I think I understand the meaning of Faith as Christians use it. In Christian-flavored English 'faith' is a static noun that one possesses a belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority. A reliance on testimony. (Collaborative International Dictionary of English) The word 'Faith' was chosen by your translators in all of your cited verse to stand in for the Hebrew word 'Emunah' which is not a Yes or No proposition. In Biblical Hebrew, 'emunah' derives from the root word 'Uman', which means an artisan or practitioner. In Modern Hebrew it means 'exercise'. Contextually being someone who's committed to cultivation and nurturing of a practice. I've highlighted this in orange because it'll make sense later on below. See, that's the big glaring issue with translations of all kinds: Someone else has chosen understandable words, thoughts, meanings, and dogma for your consumption. It's someone else's understandings for you. The translator is the one who becomes your historically reliable authority. So no, I don't have a 'faith' under your understandable term of belief. I practice Emunah. The itinerant preacher from Nazareth plays no part in it. I do not understand the Hebrew or the Koine Greek, maybe you do? I looked this up; Genesis 15:6, it may not even work posting in the editor but I'll give it a go. How do you translate this to my English language:
Why 'practiced' and not 'believed', plainly? You can see that in Bereshit (Genesis) - Chapter 15 that what's being discussed here is sacrifice because it immediately continues with (the LORD) instructing Avram (later to become "Abraham") to bring forth three calves, three goats, three rams, a turtle dove, and a young pigeon. All of these being the sacrifices for the forthcoming transgression atonement types in what will become the altar sacrifices in the later age. The practice here is sacrifice, not explicitly belief: Avram practices sacrifice, the LORD makes record of it. This illustrates the exemplified problem with the Christian method of lifting disconnected verse from its broader context and plopping it down on the table as a standalone statement. What's often lost is 'Who is speaking?', 'What's being spoken about?', 'To whom?' And so much more that I explained earlier with a string of selected translated words outside of the original language that lose the meaning, the wordplay, the poetry, the general fit, the melody, the tone, and the wisdom from the original. Full of words that don't quite fit so the translators hammered them in to fit and contextually reused them later making an even bigger mess. Or words are redacted out by classic editors because there's no viable descriptive word in Koine Greek to the Latins to pre-Renaissance English to Korean. I'm processing what you are saying in my learning mode. Thank you for your response. My faith isn’t just an idea for me, it’s active and real in my daily life. I believe I have personally encountered the Messiah and I trust Him. (Emunah U’Bitachon). Eta: this is the only Interlinear Bible I have: Attached File Attached File Would you recommend anything else? |
USMC 85-'93 Amphibious YAT-YAS
|
Adam was not created until the 8th day. God needed a farmer. Cain moved to a city. He did not marry his sister, since there was not one. I could go on and on. |
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
|
Originally Posted By Bishop3: Eta: this is the only Interlinear Bible I have: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/89656/18561_jpg-3812951.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/89656/18562_jpg-3812955.JPG Would you recommend anything else? Maybe I could suggest the Mesorah Heritage Foundation's 'Schottenstein Edition - Interlinear Chumash' from Artscroll. Be aware that the way it's printed is in traditional Orthodox Judaism's weekly 'Chumash'-style prayer book arrangement, parshah by parshah (the traditional Jewish system that was developed before the Western bibles you're comfortable with had Langston/Estienne chapter division and verse numbering) which may complicate lookup to a companion dictionary like your Strong's. It also has commentary from great sages filling the page so its a very large book with only a square of Hebrew committed to the page, so you'd be flipping pages a lot. Thankfully it has wide margins for you to scribble notes in or place adhesive sticker pointers. But what you will have is the Masoretic Textual tradition that does share greater prominence and similarity to, say, The Dead Sea Scrolls than the three levels deep of translation into the Latin Vugate that the majority of your English-language Christian bibles came from. Also it will have no authorship by evangelical Christians who mold and shape the passages towards Christology, which if you're honest and a "Just give me the words, bud" type of reader is a pervasive problem. Sorry, no Strong's numbering in this one. The dictionary to pair with the Schottenstein Interlinear Edition would be Matityahu Clark's 'Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew: Based on the Commentaries of Samson Raphael Hirsch'. I am aware most Christian scholars gravitate towards the 'Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS)' - and they must, since that's what I see them cite all the flippin' time - which is aligned with the English Standard Version (ESV) bible version. That may or may not not make a difference to you but I notice that those Christian scholars often read the Hebrew and are satisfied but then they go on to suck all the air out of the room debating at length the inaccuracies in the translation between ESV and NRSV and KJV which I have no interest in. Maybe that means something to you but not to me. I have read it and see in the very first sentence in Genesis the misunderstood Hebrew of participles of speech when the correct Hebrew is directly above the English. Must be some German to English trouble which is yet another layer of confusion. My old joke is that if you want the purest translation (I wish it was still the '90s where I could make that blink) of Hebrew, go study at a Sephardic-Yemenite Yeshiva in Jerusalem. I mean, there isn't any place to go to learn archaic Paleo-Hebrew from a direct unbroken line of scribal descendants from the time of King Yoshiayahu. Lastly if you want a New Testament translation into English from Greek, I can only help you by saying that the ones out there use reconstructed Greek back-translated from the Latin Vulgate by a committee which is a bit like saying you own Napoleon Bonaparte's totally authentic and genuine TEC-9 pistol. ETA: the companion Hebrew dictionary to go along with the Schottenstein Edition. |
A man of much courage and superb equipment
Joined:
Feb 2001
Posts:
149409
EE: 0% (0)
VA, USA
|
Originally Posted By PvtCowboy: I see you're using something that has numeric lookup resolution to Strong's Concordance, a definitively Christian scholarly work in English which to me is "Okaaaayyy", but people gotta start somewhere. I personally don't own anything that resolves to a particular version (ESV, NIV, etc.) of a Christian bible. But I've seen them and know where I can find one if I wanted to research one as I've done from time to time. There are only a few Interlinear versions that offer Strong's lookup numbers. Maybe I could suggest the Mesorah Heritage Foundation's 'Schottenstein Edition - Interlinear Chumash' from Artscroll. Be aware that the way it's printed is in traditional Orthodox Judaism's weekly 'Chumash'-style prayer book arrangement, parshah by parshah (the traditional Jewish system that was developed before the Western bibles you're comfortable with had Langston/Estienne chapter division and verse numbering) which may complicate lookup to a companion dictionary like your Strong's. It also has commentary from great sages filling the page so its a very large book with only a square of Hebrew committed to the page, so you'd be flipping pages a lot. Thankfully it has wide margins for you to scribble notes in or place adhesive sticker pointers. But what you will have is the Masoretic Textual tradition that does share greater prominence and similarity to, say, The Dead Sea Scrolls than the three levels deep of translation into the Latin Vugate that the majority of your English-language Christian bibles came from. Also it will have no authorship by evangelical Christians who mold and shape the passages towards Christology, which if you're honest and a "Just give me the words, bud" type of reader is a pervasive problem. Sorry, no Strong's numbering in this one. I am aware most Christian scholars gravitate towards the 'Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS)' - and they must, since that's what I see them cite all the flippin' time - which is aligned with the English Standard Version (ESV) bible version. That may or may not not make a difference to you but I notice that those Christian scholars often read the Hebrew and are satisfied but then they go on to suck all the air out of the room debating at length the inaccuracies in the translation between ESV and NRSV and KJV which I have no interest in. Maybe that means something to you but not to me. I have read it and see in the very first sentence in Genesis the misunderstood Hebrew of participles of speech when the correct Hebrew is directly above the English. Must be some German to English trouble which is yet another layer of confusion. My old joke is that if you want the purest translation (I wish it was still the '90s where I could make that blink) of Hebrew, go study at a Sephardic-Yemenite Yeshiva in Jerusalem. I mean, there isn't any place to go to learn archaic Paleo-Hebrew from a direct unbroken line of scribal descendants from the time of King Yoshiayahu. Lastly if you want a New Testament translation into English from Greek, I can only help you by saying that the ones out there use reconstructed Greek back-translated from the Latin Vulgate by a committee which is a bit like saying you own Napoleon Bonaparte's totally authentic and genuine TEC-9 pistol. Originally Posted By PvtCowboy: Originally Posted By Bishop3: Eta: this is the only Interlinear Bible I have: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/89656/18561_jpg-3812951.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/89656/18562_jpg-3812955.JPG Would you recommend anything else? Maybe I could suggest the Mesorah Heritage Foundation's 'Schottenstein Edition - Interlinear Chumash' from Artscroll. Be aware that the way it's printed is in traditional Orthodox Judaism's weekly 'Chumash'-style prayer book arrangement, parshah by parshah (the traditional Jewish system that was developed before the Western bibles you're comfortable with had Langston/Estienne chapter division and verse numbering) which may complicate lookup to a companion dictionary like your Strong's. It also has commentary from great sages filling the page so its a very large book with only a square of Hebrew committed to the page, so you'd be flipping pages a lot. Thankfully it has wide margins for you to scribble notes in or place adhesive sticker pointers. But what you will have is the Masoretic Textual tradition that does share greater prominence and similarity to, say, The Dead Sea Scrolls than the three levels deep of translation into the Latin Vugate that the majority of your English-language Christian bibles came from. Also it will have no authorship by evangelical Christians who mold and shape the passages towards Christology, which if you're honest and a "Just give me the words, bud" type of reader is a pervasive problem. Sorry, no Strong's numbering in this one. I am aware most Christian scholars gravitate towards the 'Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS)' - and they must, since that's what I see them cite all the flippin' time - which is aligned with the English Standard Version (ESV) bible version. That may or may not not make a difference to you but I notice that those Christian scholars often read the Hebrew and are satisfied but then they go on to suck all the air out of the room debating at length the inaccuracies in the translation between ESV and NRSV and KJV which I have no interest in. Maybe that means something to you but not to me. I have read it and see in the very first sentence in Genesis the misunderstood Hebrew of participles of speech when the correct Hebrew is directly above the English. Must be some German to English trouble which is yet another layer of confusion. My old joke is that if you want the purest translation (I wish it was still the '90s where I could make that blink) of Hebrew, go study at a Sephardic-Yemenite Yeshiva in Jerusalem. I mean, there isn't any place to go to learn archaic Paleo-Hebrew from a direct unbroken line of scribal descendants from the time of King Yoshiayahu. Lastly if you want a New Testament translation into English from Greek, I can only help you by saying that the ones out there use reconstructed Greek back-translated from the Latin Vulgate by a committee which is a bit like saying you own Napoleon Bonaparte's totally authentic and genuine TEC-9 pistol. You seem to piece together a historical narrative the eliminates the continuity of scripture and teaching that stayed in Greek. I think the Eastern Christian churches would be amused to "learn" they depend on any source texts that were back-translated from Latin. You also seem to cherry-pick Protestant/Evangelical traditions that weigh English and German translations heavily, while either forgetting or dismissing that Christianity's core understanding predates the very existence of such languages. Alas, we've had this chat before. The evangelical KJV strawman as a tool by which to slay the teaching of apostolic Christianity seems to be your default position. It is possibly very effective in certain western circles, but quite inconsistent otherwise. It's like you're stuck in an argument made by Ashkenazi or Sephardic European rabbis in the 1500s that had an axe to grind against Rome and as little scholarly contact with the East as anyone else at the time. |
History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which Trump is always right.
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
|
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: You seem to peace together a historical narrative the eliminates the continuity of scripture and teaching that stayed in Greek. I think the Eastern Christian churches would be amused to "learn" they depend on any source texts that were back-translated from Latin. Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: You seem to peace together a historical narrative the eliminates the continuity of scripture and teaching that stayed in Greek. I think the Eastern Christian churches would be amused to "learn" they depend on any source texts that were back-translated from Latin. You also seem to cherry-pick Protestant/Evangelical traditions that weigh English and German translations heavily, while either forgetting or dismissing that Christianity's core understanding predates the very existence of such languages. Alas, we've had this chat before. The evangelical KJV strawman as a tool by which to slay the teaching of apostolic Christianity seems to be your default position. Nobody in academia is wading through the goode merrie Scots keenge's Ye Olde Teftament thee and thous and prithee for-soothe stout yeoman to get to a plain English translation from Masoretic Hebrew. The Interlinear bible I suggested uses no Christian landing zone at all. |
Joined:
Mar 2026
Posts:
155
EE: 0% (0)
FL, USA
|
The Book of Genesis was told by Moses according to the Bible. It depicts the creation of the Earth and all of it's inhabitants, the history of the people, their interactions with God and the Nephilim, kingdoms rise and fall, and in the end a great flood wipes it all away except for one man and his family. There was a lot to cover during those 1,665 years from the creation to the flood according to the Bible. And all of that history was told through the lens of one man who told his children who told their wives, etc... etc... over 500 years later the story is written down. And here we are 3500 years after the first writing of an already 500 year old oral story asking questions that there will never be an answer too. The flood wiped it all away. How can we find Eden if the 4 rivers in the description are no longer even around? It is like discussing what Ham saw when he entered the tent. There is just too little information to develop a good theory that does not involve a God Gap. |
A man of much courage and superb equipment
Joined:
Feb 2001
Posts:
149418
EE: 0% (0)
VA, USA
|
Originally Posted By PvtCowboy: The case I was writing about is of an Interlinear Hebrew -> English version, you see. Not anything the Eastern Orthodox Church uses. Anything in Greek is not in my wheelhouse. That's all New Testament stuff and the later medieval versions of the Septuagint that were shaped to appear Christologic. The topic here between myself and my USMC bro was literally about Interlinear translations into English. German was mentioned only because most Christian scholars default to the Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia. It's publishing only goes back to 1968 but it is the culminating work of a 19th Century German rector of divinity who copied the Leningrad Codex with added critical notation and indexing of interest and use to Christian biblical academics. I think I mentioned King James' version once here in that the present scholarly default is towards an Interlinear edition that uses the ESV from 2001 as the target model instead of a NRSV that most biblical academic scholars use. Nobody in academia is wading through the goode merrie Scots keenge's Ye Olde Teftament thee and thous and prithee for-soothe stout yeoman to get to a plain English translation from Masoretic Hebrew. The Interlinear bible I suggested uses no Christian landing zone at all. Originally Posted By PvtCowboy: Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: You seem to peace together a historical narrative the eliminates the continuity of scripture and teaching that stayed in Greek. I think the Eastern Christian churches would be amused to "learn" they depend on any source texts that were back-translated from Latin. You also seem to cherry-pick Protestant/Evangelical traditions that weigh English and German translations heavily, while either forgetting or dismissing that Christianity's core understanding predates the very existence of such languages. Alas, we've had this chat before. The evangelical KJV strawman as a tool by which to slay the teaching of apostolic Christianity seems to be your default position. Nobody in academia is wading through the goode merrie Scots keenge's Ye Olde Teftament thee and thous and prithee for-soothe stout yeoman to get to a plain English translation from Masoretic Hebrew. The Interlinear bible I suggested uses no Christian landing zone at all. Let me make this more simple. You: But what you will have is the Masoretic Textual tradition that does share greater prominence and similarity to, say, The Dead Sea Scrolls than the three levels deep of translation into the Latin Vugate that the majority of your English-language Christian bibles came from. This is absolute nonsense. Also you: if you want a New Testament translation into English from Greek, I can only help you by saying that the ones out there use reconstructed Greek back-translated from the Latin Vulgate by a committee... More absolute nonsense. And now you've added this gem: later medieval versions of the Septuagint that were shaped to appear Christologic. To make such claims maybe, just maybe, you should bring some Greek into your wheelhouse, or at least demonstrate a fraction of a clue as to the history of these documents. |
History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which Trump is always right.
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
|
Originally Posted By RunsonCLP: And here we are 3500 years after the first writing of an already 500 year old oral story asking questions that there will never be an answer too. The flood wiped it all away. How can we find Eden if the 4 rivers in the description are no longer even around? The first two named rivers Pishon and Gihon have been studied by 19th Century biblical archaeologist/explorers and identified by associated place names in an effort to make the text fit their certain theological beliefs. Everything from the Nile, the Blue Nile of Kush (if you accept that Kush is the Afro-Egyptian Kingdom of Kush and not a place in Central Asia), the Ganges, and even a dried up river through the Arabian peninsula with a Christian explorer showing rounded river stones he allegedly found in the wadi he identifies with Pishon. Jewish tradition says Pishon is the Nile, probably the Upper Nile ("Blue Nile") in what's now the Sudan. Sure looks Eden-like to me. And Gihon? Not said. The Hebrew Bible clearly reads Four Heads of these rivers and not four branches. In the numerous Christian bibles it's a mix of 'four river heads/headwaters', 'four rivers', and 'four river branches' depending on the translation. This caused different contentions amongst European scholars and 19th Century man-of-action explorers with Pith helmets and baggage porters tramping through the Middle East and East Africa declaring this place and that to be Biblical sites. You have the names and locations of the last two rivers in Genesis 2:11-13 though. 'Tigris' will appear in your bibles using the Greek name, but in the ancient age the name for the Tigris was the (Sumerian)/Akkadian (Indigna)/Idiqlat and written in ancient Biblical Hebrew as Hiddiqel ("Chidekel"). All of these translate to "Swift/Running Water" and the way its written in the Hebrew Bible might make one wonder how it came to be that if Moshe the Egyptian Prince was taking dictation from God in the Wilderness he wrote it down using the Jewish/Babylonian-influenced place names. Solution? I believe Ezra the Scribe who came to Jerusalem from Persian Babylon in the 4th Century BCE chose what to write/preserve/interpret from previous Hebrew literature. It would explain other anachronisms like place names in Genesis and Exodus that didn't exist yet in Moshe's time (some 800 years earlier, if you take it at face value). Others will cherish more mystical traditions. |
A man of much courage and superb equipment
Joined:
Feb 2001
Posts:
149438
EE: 0% (0)
VA, USA
|
I'm amused that the same biblical literalists who insist the flood of Noah created the Grand Canyon and explains why oceanic fossils exist high in mountain ranges would similarly pursue pre-flood geographical features based on scripture, assuming they would even still be around. But, a lot of things amuse me. |
History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which Trump is always right.
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
Joined:
May 2026
Posts:
1597
EE: 0% (0)
FL, USA
|
Originally Posted By Tech-Com: I want to offer a different way of reading the opening chapters of Genesis—not as a doctrine I expect anyone to simply accept, but as a question worth testing against Scripture. We naturally assume Genesis 1 describes the creation of the original paradise and that Genesis 2–3 simply continues the same account chronologically. But does the text actually require us to read it that way? One reason to ask is the long-recognized difficulty in reconciling the apparent order of creation in the two accounts. Genesis 1 presents vegetation, then animals, and finally humanity—male and female. Genesis 2 appears to present the man, then vegetation associated with the garden, then the animals being brought before the man, and finally the woman. Attempts can certainly be made to harmonize these sequences, but on a straightforward reading they do not appear to follow the same order. Perhaps that tension is there because something additional is happening. What if we are assuming these chapters describe one continuous chronological sequence when the text is doing something more complex? Might I suggest a few minor translations to spark some additional thought. “The first order of God was the fashioning of the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) Adam is never named in Genesis 1. Now compare that with Genesis 2:4: “This is the Bible of the genealogy [Genesis] of the heavens and the earth, when they came into being, in the day God made them.” Notice what this declaration tells the reader: this “day,” and the making of the heavens and the earth associated with it, introduces the account of the life that immediately follows in Chapter 2—the vegetation, Adam, the garden, the animals, and the woman. Not made over six days, but associated with a single day! Can we really assume Genesis 1 describes the creation of the original paradise? Or could it describe the ordering of the cosmos following Adam’s fall? Notice how much of Genesis 1 involves separation and ordering. Light is separated from darkness. The waters above are separated from the waters below. Heaven and earth are distinguished. Rather than merely describing things coming into existence, could Genesis 1 be describing the ordering and division of a cosmos that already stands in need of separation? Consider also that Genesis 1 already contains darkness, and on the fourth day the lesser luminary is appointed “to rule the night” (Genesis 1:16). Night has already been associated with darkness (1:5). If this points toward the cosmic authority later understood as the Prince of Darkness, then the need for Christ is already present within the order Genesis 1 describes. That makes the prophecy concerning Jesus especially interesting: “The people walking in darkness have seen a great light.” (Isaiah 9:2) And Jesus declares: “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness.” (John 8:12) Matthew 1:1 then echoes the language of Genesis 2:4: “The Bible of the genealogy [Genesis] of Jesus Christ.” So whose genealogy begins in Genesis 2, if we understand the language in the same manner as Matthew 1:1? Paul gives us another reason to consider the possibility. He says: “The spiritual was not first, but the natural, and then the spiritual.” He then contrasts the first anthropos, from the earth, with the second anthropos, from heaven (1 Corinthians 15:46–47), and identifies Adam as the first anthropos and Christ as the last Adam (15:45). Perhaps, then, the apparent conflict between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is not something that needs to be forced into a single creation sequence. Perhaps something additional is happening between these accounts. Genesis 1 may not be describing the original paradise at all. It may instead describe the ordering of the first, natural cosmos following the fall—a divided world of heaven and earth, light and darkness, waters above and waters below. If so, the Gospel becomes an extraordinary reversal: into the world ruled by darkness comes the Light of the World; into the earthly order comes the anthropos from heaven; and through the last Adam comes not merely a return to what was, but a new creation. “The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” With Love, Jesse Genesis 1 and genesis 2 do not contradict each other. Contradiction is NOT "I don't understand how those go together." It is when "if that is true, this cannot be true" is the situation. Genesis 2's text does not say or mean there is no vegetation. (Genesis 2:4-8) This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. It even tells you what was going on. No shrub yet in the earth, no plant of the field sprouted, because no rain, and no man to cultivate. If it can sprout and grow when you cultivate and water it, it had to already exist in the first place. There is not conflict between genesis 1 and 2. Generally, there's a charlie horse between our ears, and we mistake that hurt between our ears for the text itself being conflicting, which is a mistake on our part. |
Joined:
May 2026
Posts:
1598
EE: 0% (0)
FL, USA
|
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: I'm amused that the same biblical literalists who insist the flood of Noah created the Grand Canyon and explains why oceanic fossils exist high in mountain ranges would similarly pursue pre-flood geographical features based on scripture, assuming they would even still be around. But, a lot of things amuse me. Hnh? Are you saying that a global flood had to remove all pre-flood features? |
A man of much courage and superb equipment
Joined:
Feb 2001
Posts:
149441
EE: 0% (0)
VA, USA
|
Originally Posted By lygxis: Hnh? Are you saying that a global flood had to remove all pre-flood features? Originally Posted By lygxis: Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: I'm amused that the same biblical literalists who insist the flood of Noah created the Grand Canyon and explains why oceanic fossils exist high in mountain ranges would similarly pursue pre-flood geographical features based on scripture, assuming they would even still be around. But, a lot of things amuse me. Hnh? Are you saying that a global flood had to remove all pre-flood features? If it supposedly created canyons and mountain ranges and such, what reason is there to believe the same rivers would have the same locations? 
|
History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which Trump is always right.
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
Joined:
May 2026
Posts:
1603
EE: 0% (0)
FL, USA
|
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: If it supposedly created canyons and mountain ranges and such, what reason is there to believe the same rivers would have the same locations? https://media3.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTZjMDliOTUyZHNqdms1Z2Q1ZWZlbWw5Nml3Yng1MGcwdTF0N2NnYnlwdDZyb29tciZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/11OO4x7JURZoTC/giphy.gif Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: Originally Posted By lygxis: Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: I'm amused that the same biblical literalists who insist the flood of Noah created the Grand Canyon and explains why oceanic fossils exist high in mountain ranges would similarly pursue pre-flood geographical features based on scripture, assuming they would even still be around. But, a lot of things amuse me. Hnh? Are you saying that a global flood had to remove all pre-flood features? If it supposedly created canyons and mountain ranges and such, what reason is there to believe the same rivers would have the same locations? https://media3.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTZjMDliOTUyZHNqdms1Z2Q1ZWZlbWw5Nml3Yng1MGcwdTF0N2NnYnlwdDZyb29tciZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/11OO4x7JURZoTC/giphy.gif Not what I asked. I'd expect that after a global flood, and the water receded back into the crust, whatever could be reshaped by the water in that amount of time and the direction of those flows would be reshaped, and whatever couldn't (mountains, bedrock, etc.) wouldn't be reshaped. I suspect we have a fairly decent body of work on what water can and cannot reshape to give us a rough guess. |
|
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: More absolute nonsense. Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: if you want a New Testament translation into English from Greek, I can only help you by saying that the ones out there use reconstructed Greek back-translated from the Latin Vulgate OR by a committee.[/b]
Maybe you're thinking there is an Interlinear version of the Codex Sinaiticus? Meaning a Codex Sinaiticus 'Greek -> literal English', word-for-word, while preserving the exact Sinaiticus reading? No. There is an ongoing project however and I bet it'll be quite some time before anyone with peer-reviewed scholarly intentions uses it seriously. |
A man of much courage and superb equipment
Joined:
Feb 2001
Posts:
149447
EE: 0% (0)
VA, USA
|
Originally Posted By PvtCowboy: Two points here that ought to cover your other objections I didn't quote:
Maybe you're thinking there is an Interlinear version of the Codex Sinaiticus? Meaning a Codex Sinaiticus 'Greek -> literal English', word-for-word, while preserving the exact Sinaiticus reading? No. There is an ongoing project however and I bet it'll be quite some time before anyone with peer-reviewed scholarly intentions uses it seriously. Originally Posted By PvtCowboy: Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: if you want a New Testament translation into English from Greek, I can only help you by saying that the ones out there use reconstructed Greek back-translated from the Latin Vulgate OR by a committee.[/b]
Maybe you're thinking there is an Interlinear version of the Codex Sinaiticus? Meaning a Codex Sinaiticus 'Greek -> literal English', word-for-word, while preserving the exact Sinaiticus reading? No. There is an ongoing project however and I bet it'll be quite some time before anyone with peer-reviewed scholarly intentions uses it seriously. You seem to be greatly oversimplifying the approach in modern critical translations. The UBS Greek New Testament effort had Codex Sinaiticus as a reference, as well as many other texts. You aren't suggesting Codex Sinaiticus was translated from Latin, are you? |
History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which Trump is always right.
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
Modern life is one steep, perpetual tax on the mathematically impaired
|
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: You seem to be greatly oversimplifying the approach in modern critical translations. The UBS Greek New Testament effort had Codex Sinaiticus as a reference, as well as many other texts. You aren't suggesting Codex Sinaiticus was translated from Latin, are you? Secondly, my own interest in even brushing up against Christian subjects stem from the parts of early Christian writings that seem to have dim scarce shadows of an authentic Jewish story in them. I don't believe they ought to be ignored. There are a lot of good and righteous thoughts in there, despite how half-baked the story became. Less important to me are the others that make a massacre in how early middle age Church personages wrote polemics through misinterpretations based upon faulty translations or mischaracterizations. I do show some peculiar amusement in discussions where Jewish mysticism and even Gnosticism has somehow leaked into Christian canon. And here I typically only insert myself in order to correct people who in either error or maliciousness declare this or that to be something that Jews believe to support their position. Oh, like anything related to Talmud for example. All of this above is directly related to critical translation. That's where I might weigh in. Other than that, I stay out of whatever they address. Usually I don't even bother watching except to renew my understanding of where the ball is on whatever they're debating. I'm not an inquisitor and don't volunteer for medieval disputations. And to answer your question, no. The various codecies are early Medieval Greco-Roman and written in Greek. Namely, Christianity before everything got really Italian flavored. (Edited for clarification and typos) |
|
As pointed out, the chapters and verses have no authority. They are great for reference, but don't put anything else into them. Genesis 1 (and beginning of Chapter 2) can be considered an overview and does not include many details that are expounded on later. Take for eample verses 1 and 2: between these two verses there was a war in heaven that brought destruction to the earth. God, in the beginning (as it should more accurately read) created the heaven and the earth. Verse 2 should more accurately read as the earth became without form and void (tohu va bohu) - God did not set it up this way because He is a God of order. The destruction of the earth was so complete that God had to start over creating new life. Note that Adam and Eve were not commanded to be fruitful and populate the earth - they were commanded to be fruitful and repopulate the earth. That means there was a population on earth before Adam and Eve that had been completely destroyed and they were to replace. |
|
Originally Posted By PvtCowboy: Firstly the Christian writings aren't my bag and the fierce debates between Christians in antiquity to modern times are so numerous any subject could fill Arfcom to 1000 page threads on any contentious subject and still be 'oversimplifying'. If you've seen how they can go at each other like black ants versus red ants over what seems to be the most innocuous of terms or points of contention its no wonder internet discussions on these subjects all look like upside down ziggurats of endless quotes and replies. Secondly, my own interest in even brushing up against Christian subjects stem from the parts of early Christian writings that seem to have dim scarce shadows of an authentic Jewish story in them. I don't believe they ought to be ignored. There are a lot of good and righteous thoughts in there, despite how half-baked the story became. Less important to me are the others that make a massacre in how early middle age Church personages wrote polemics through misinterpretations based upon faulty translations or mischaracterizations. I do show some peculiar amusement in discussions where Jewish mysticism and even Gnosticism has somehow leaked into Christian canon. And here I typically only insert myself in order to correct people who in either error or maliciousness declare this or that to be something that Jews believe to support their position. Oh, like anything related to Talmud for example. All of this above is directly related to critical translation. That's where I might weigh in. Other than that, I stay out of whatever they address. Usually I don't even bother watching except to renew my understanding of where the ball is on whatever they're debating. I'm not an inquisitor and don't volunteer for medieval disputations. And to answer your question, no. The various codecies are early Medieval Greco-Roman and written in Greek. Namely, Christianity before everything got really Italian flavored. (Edited for clarification and typos) Originally Posted By PvtCowboy: Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam: You seem to be greatly oversimplifying the approach in modern critical translations. The UBS Greek New Testament effort had Codex Sinaiticus as a reference, as well as many other texts. You aren't suggesting Codex Sinaiticus was translated from Latin, are you? Secondly, my own interest in even brushing up against Christian subjects stem from the parts of early Christian writings that seem to have dim scarce shadows of an authentic Jewish story in them. I don't believe they ought to be ignored. There are a lot of good and righteous thoughts in there, despite how half-baked the story became. Less important to me are the others that make a massacre in how early middle age Church personages wrote polemics through misinterpretations based upon faulty translations or mischaracterizations. I do show some peculiar amusement in discussions where Jewish mysticism and even Gnosticism has somehow leaked into Christian canon. And here I typically only insert myself in order to correct people who in either error or maliciousness declare this or that to be something that Jews believe to support their position. Oh, like anything related to Talmud for example. All of this above is directly related to critical translation. That's where I might weigh in. Other than that, I stay out of whatever they address. Usually I don't even bother watching except to renew my understanding of where the ball is on whatever they're debating. I'm not an inquisitor and don't volunteer for medieval disputations. And to answer your question, no. The various codecies are early Medieval Greco-Roman and written in Greek. Namely, Christianity before everything got really Italian flavored. (Edited for clarification and typos) Make sure you get those jabs in on Christians before you answer the question. |
|
Originally Posted By TaylorSwiftsCat: Make sure you get those jabs in on Christians before you answer the question. And a blessed New Year to all. 
|
|
Originally Posted By SCR556: As pointed out, the chapters and verses have no authority. They are great for reference, but don't put anything else into them. Genesis 1 (and beginning of Chapter 2) can be considered an overview and does not include many details that are expounded on later. Take for eample verses 1 and 2: between these two verses there was a war in heaven that brought destruction to the earth. God, in the beginning (as it should more accurately read) created the heaven and the earth. Verse 2 should more accurately read as the earth became without form and void (tohu va bohu) - God did not set it up this way because He is a God of order. The destruction of the earth was so complete that God had to start over creating new life. Note that Adam and Eve were not commanded to be fruitful and populate the earth - they were commanded to be fruitful and repopulate the earth. That means there was a population on earth before Adam and Eve that had been completely destroyed and they were to replace. Can you discuss how it is translated “repopulate” and references that exist to this war? |
|
Originally Posted By Tech-Com: Can you discuss how it is translated "repopulate" and references that exist to this war? Originally Posted By Tech-Com: Originally Posted By SCR556: Verse 2 should more accurately read as the earth became without form and void (tohu va bohu) - God did not set it up this way because He is a God of order. The destruction of the earth was so complete that God had to start over creating new life. Note that Adam and Eve were not commanded to be fruitful and populate the earth - they were commanded to be fruitful and repopulate the earth. That means there was a population on earth before Adam and Eve that had been completely destroyed and they were to replace Can you discuss how it is translated "repopulate" and references that exist to this war? Verse 2 should more accurately read as the earth became without form and void (tohu va bohu) And: Note that Adam and Eve were not commanded to be fruitful and populate the earth - they were commanded to be fruitful and repopulate the earth. That means there was a population on earth before Adam and Eve that had been completely destroyed and they were to replace All I really know about it was that it was an effort for embarrassed Christian apologists to cling to a new idea reconciling the traditional Young Earth Theory (some medieval Christian decided the Earth was only 5500+ years old) against the 19th Century's scientific advancements in Geology and Archaeology in explaining that Genesis 1's mentioned 'days' of Creation myth were really millions of years long and therefore somehow Adam and Eve weren't really the first people and were created and commanded by God to 'replenish' the Earth accounting for this Gap Creationism backstory about Lucifer being the overlord of a darkened primordial Earth holding sway over a race of pre-Adamic humans and fallen angels and whatnot. Then God wiped them out in a flood and came up with Adam and Eve. I dunno where they pulled all that out of Genesis. Your guess is as good as mine. But that's Scottish Presbyterianism canon if you really start asking them questions. Only goes back to about the time of the development of the steam engine. Since then its been latched onto and became normative Oral Roberts and Jimmy Swaggart teachings in the USA. And all of this was based on the single word chosen by the King James Bible writers as 'replenish' for the Hebrew word M'Ilu which to be perfectly honest can kinda sorta be translated as 'replenished' in English but is used more often (including over 300 times in the original King James Bible) to simply mean 'Fill'. Less than 10 times did the KJV choose 'replenish' for this word but instead chose 'fill' throughout the Bible for the same word over three hundred other times. This kind of stuff is exactly my point earlier in this thread about the sort of shenanigans some charlatan can develop from these Koine Greek -> Latin Vulgaris -> Elizabethan English -> Modern English fifth generation distilled fucky translations of the Torah at any one of those stops along the way. |