You are the one claiming superiority:"Betchevy, I reject the notion that we cannot understand the Word of God without going to the original languages. I love going to the Greek and the Hebrew, but what I hold in my hands when I hold a modern translation is just as much the Word of God. Please, let us stay on topic, otherwise this is pointless, and I do not wish to waste my time."Why is my opinion unimportant to you, you asked for this discussion and we obliged you , you refuse to ever address Jeremiah or look at the orginal text...you want to even tell me what I can bring into the discussion... who is claiming superiority here? this in no longer a disussion but a battle of WILL I will not continue.
6000 years or millions of years ?
- Thread starter betchevy
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Bet, I shall reply to your post when I can properly study through the passage that you have referred to. Tonight, I am able and willing to discuss 2 Peter 3 intelligently. If you have any questions concerning that, please let me know.
I am not ignoring you, and I am not saying that you cannot go to the original languages. I am saying that we are capable of understanding the word of God without doing so, but such does benefit the student. If new revelation is discovered by going to the original languages, then one must be leary of one of two things: 1) The translation that he is using, for then it is not a true translation 2) The manuscript that he is using.There, as you know, thousands of manuscripts. I am not refusing the address Jeremiah, and shall do so, as I said I would. I am not claiming superiority, you are the ones saying that I must have the eyes to see. Good-night and day, for now I must be going.
I am not ignoring you, and I am not saying that you cannot go to the original languages. I am saying that we are capable of understanding the word of God without doing so, but such does benefit the student. If new revelation is discovered by going to the original languages, then one must be leary of one of two things: 1) The translation that he is using, for then it is not a true translation 2) The manuscript that he is using.There, as you know, thousands of manuscripts. I am not refusing the address Jeremiah, and shall do so, as I said I would. I am not claiming superiority, you are the ones saying that I must have the eyes to see. Good-night and day, for now I must be going.
(writer4hisglory;9659)
I am not ignoring you, and I am not saying that you cannot go to the original languages. I am saying that we are capable of understanding the word of God without doing so, but such does benefit the student. If new revelation is discovered by going to the original languages, then one must be leary of one of two things: 1) The translation that he is using, for then it is not a true translation 2) The manuscript that he is using.There, as you know, thousands of manuscripts. I am not refusing the address Jeremiah, and shall do so, as I said I would. I am not claiming superiority, you are the ones saying that I must have the eyes to see. Good-night and day, for now I must be going.
Writer4you are both right and wrongwe can understand Gods word without going back to the original language but only to a certain degree, Gods word is taught in levels less it completely overwhelm the reader you have to slowly graduate as your spirit allows and knowledge grows. for example you read the bible once parts you understand easily other parts are confusing. you read it more you undertand morethen you realize that things like mountains are nations,stars are angleslamb can signify Christ, Iam sure you agree with me up to this point.this is where most really began to grasp the Word. Where most churches and peoplepretty much stop from here learn small things but pretty much stay at this levelBut God in his majesty doesn't stop there. He has more levels to teach for those that want to study deeper know more, work harder. For example in Epo's study for me he talked about a level of teaching through the Hebrew names God in his wisdom often used names to teach as you know he changed Abrams name to Abraham because it meant something different There is a whole level of teaching in names alone. Is this necessary to understand the bible ?Depends what you mean if you learn this teaching it is amazing at the little things you missed it gives you a fuller more satisfying deeper understanding. However to understand these names you have to go outside the bible for help translating the names so its more work and study.There is also a level of teaching about nature God just didn't by accident use Locusts, scorpians, fig trees ect in his word.They all have a much deeper meaning but not many of us know how the scorpian kills without going to an encyclopedia. But when you learn that you go oh wow. You could probably write a small book on the capstone,cornor stone,unhuen by human stones.Another book on the temple measurements,an the priest breastplate's holy of hollies the names of God,the names of Satan it never stops, then there is the study of the numbers. So do you need to know more that is up to you. What we are teaching is in Gods word but it is a deeper level of teaching and you may not get it but to say it is not there is simply wrong.To say there is no more than what you and others know is to limit Gods Word. That does not say you can take liberty and make what ever you want be true it must be in context rightly an divided. In fact a strange paradox takes place the more you understand of the workings of God the more you realize each piece fits its exact spot and it actully becomes more difficult to take things out of context The rest is up to the reader how much to you want to know about your Father and his word to you?With that I will leave you to asorb this information above till you are ready.
I am not ignoring you, and I am not saying that you cannot go to the original languages. I am saying that we are capable of understanding the word of God without doing so, but such does benefit the student. If new revelation is discovered by going to the original languages, then one must be leary of one of two things: 1) The translation that he is using, for then it is not a true translation 2) The manuscript that he is using.There, as you know, thousands of manuscripts. I am not refusing the address Jeremiah, and shall do so, as I said I would. I am not claiming superiority, you are the ones saying that I must have the eyes to see. Good-night and day, for now I must be going.
Writer4you are both right and wrongwe can understand Gods word without going back to the original language but only to a certain degree, Gods word is taught in levels less it completely overwhelm the reader you have to slowly graduate as your spirit allows and knowledge grows. for example you read the bible once parts you understand easily other parts are confusing. you read it more you undertand morethen you realize that things like mountains are nations,stars are angleslamb can signify Christ, Iam sure you agree with me up to this point.this is where most really began to grasp the Word. Where most churches and peoplepretty much stop from here learn small things but pretty much stay at this levelBut God in his majesty doesn't stop there. He has more levels to teach for those that want to study deeper know more, work harder. For example in Epo's study for me he talked about a level of teaching through the Hebrew names God in his wisdom often used names to teach as you know he changed Abrams name to Abraham because it meant something different There is a whole level of teaching in names alone. Is this necessary to understand the bible ?Depends what you mean if you learn this teaching it is amazing at the little things you missed it gives you a fuller more satisfying deeper understanding. However to understand these names you have to go outside the bible for help translating the names so its more work and study.There is also a level of teaching about nature God just didn't by accident use Locusts, scorpians, fig trees ect in his word.They all have a much deeper meaning but not many of us know how the scorpian kills without going to an encyclopedia. But when you learn that you go oh wow. You could probably write a small book on the capstone,cornor stone,unhuen by human stones.Another book on the temple measurements,an the priest breastplate's holy of hollies the names of God,the names of Satan it never stops, then there is the study of the numbers. So do you need to know more that is up to you. What we are teaching is in Gods word but it is a deeper level of teaching and you may not get it but to say it is not there is simply wrong.To say there is no more than what you and others know is to limit Gods Word. That does not say you can take liberty and make what ever you want be true it must be in context rightly an divided. In fact a strange paradox takes place the more you understand of the workings of God the more you realize each piece fits its exact spot and it actully becomes more difficult to take things out of context The rest is up to the reader how much to you want to know about your Father and his word to you?With that I will leave you to asorb this information above till you are ready.
We did not exist before in "spiritual bodies". I would so much like to see your scriptural reference for this, Kriss, thesuperjag, and Bet.
As a babe in Christ, I would prefer if you keep me out of this, since I can only know what I only know...I took their persective (conversation or whatever)(lack of better words) and put that as an "what if" in the shoutbox...To be honest with thee, we all (us that was on the shoutbox) received Christ in our hearts, but all at different time. Before then, Our comfort zone is of this world. If ye think about it, since the Lord is perfect, did not lack...etc... our flesh is of this world. But our soul, does not need it but only our God. Not many will take their time for finding the truth. However, things do get very deep. We can't just shove the Word of God into our throat, WE must take our time. ONE step at a time. Not in a whole rush thingy. The truth does hurt, because our flesh is comfortable with lies...Lovest ye in Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour.
As a babe in Christ, I would prefer if you keep me out of this, since I can only know what I only know...I took their persective (conversation or whatever)(lack of better words) and put that as an "what if" in the shoutbox...To be honest with thee, we all (us that was on the shoutbox) received Christ in our hearts, but all at different time. Before then, Our comfort zone is of this world. If ye think about it, since the Lord is perfect, did not lack...etc... our flesh is of this world. But our soul, does not need it but only our God. Not many will take their time for finding the truth. However, things do get very deep. We can't just shove the Word of God into our throat, WE must take our time. ONE step at a time. Not in a whole rush thingy. The truth does hurt, because our flesh is comfortable with lies...Lovest ye in Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour.
On for a brief moment. Bet, Kriss, the way that you are defending your argument is by telling me that I am not able to grasp the meaning of the text because I have to look for something that isn't plainly there. What? Is God the author of confusion? If God means for the mountains to be nations and stars to be angels, then He will reveal that in His word. But, if He simply says that He is speaking about a mountain or about the stars, then I must take Him at His word and assume nothing further - to do so would be known as eisegesis, or reading into the text what is not there. I believe that there is one proper hermenuetic, and that is a literal, historical and contextual approach to the Word of God. Your method is not so. Back to the topic, which you still have yet to adequately support by clear teachings within scripture: the earth existing for billions of years. You have given me 2Peter, which I have clearly shown to be speaking of Noah's flood. I have yet to look at Jeremiah, but this too, in context, is speaking of Israel, not a pre-existing race of souls, angels and dinosaurs. (sigh) The arguments that you present would, honestly put (and I do not mean to offend, though it shall nonetheless) be laughed out of any higher education institution. They are not founded.
How can we show when you refuse to read what we give you I gave you a link to nephilim from Bulinger (a scholar) it is an exact copy of the appendix in the companion Bible have you read it?its one page. We have explained language for example in my mark study (not the name marK) I show where the English word mark(as in spot) the hebrew/greek actually uses 16 different words all translated to English as the word mark. Example:Ruth 3:4And it shall be, when he lieth down, that thou shalt mark the place where he shall lie, and thou shalt go in, and uncover his feet, and lay thee down; and he will tell thee what thou shalt doStrongs # 03045 yada` {yaw-dah'} a root word1) to know a) to know, learn to know
to perceive c) to perceive and see, find out and discern d) to discriminate, distinguish e) to know by experience f) to recognise, admit, acknowledge, confess g) to consider 2) to know, be acquainted with 3) to know (a person carnally) 4) to know how, be skilful in You can plainly see that meaning of mark here in the original language has nothing to do with making a spot(place)Is it necessary to know this to get the jest of the story No. but it paints a much clearer picture here if we understand she was to be wise,skillful maybe even knew him in carnal or intimate way.Now if I had said to you the bible say Ruth may have slept with him you would argue it does not say that in my Bible but it does say that in the Hebrew so you see how you can gain details by knowing language. It expands upon a subject. It teaches you the lengths Ruth was willing to go.Paints a bigger picture if you will.This is why language can be important. The bible interprets itself you.Rev 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches. Is God not interpreting for us in the above verse? Does that mean every time he says stars it means angles? To know this you have to go find the original word used here for stars. Then if you find all the places that word was used then you know which times he met angles and which times he just met stars. As I said to just see the text you have and say God just said this is to limit God. And you are mistaken all bible scholars know this. They just don't teach it.
Now that hopefully you have some understaning of language and its import to get to a deeper level of the Word of God not fairytailsback to the subject here is a short one page studyhttp://www.levendwater.org/companion/append146.htmlI also as I said ask that you read the one page link I gave you to nephiiulm if they are not in Gods word why does the companion bible have a complete appendix on it? Why are these other writings in the cannon, apacohrpha? you say there is no original copies. Were not there scribes writting from ancient times? When the dead sea scrolls were found (hidden around the time of Jesus ) they had vertilly every book inthe old testament almost word for word they way they came to us today yet some were written 1000 years before Christ. They also contained many older documents like Enoch that were coomon among the religious leders of the day. So are you in the believe that God could make the earth and all in it but could not preserve his words and those of his prophets?
Applause, applause... Although I don't understand other language...but I do see that if people becomes ignorant...and just hath only the text most people have (english) while thou can understand the Word at a certain degree...just like Kriss says, Limiting God in just one language, is not healthy...because it's likely to lead to a argument (the miserable type of argument) and just argue with a person that knows much.Perhaps I think that's what Lucy want us to do...is to LIMIT our God. Yea, I'm fully aware that languages are against each other....ensample: Ever since Lucy deceives Eve...there can be a group of people that the Hebrew text loves (God's Words) (languages speaking here) and a False Hebrew Text that Lucy creates...see where I'm coming from? (Even the Greek language)Lovest ye in Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour. God blessed...
writer, you are telling us we are right or wrong... you are not to tell us that... you are not our authority on right or wrong, you may say, I agree or disagree... this is why I will not discuss anything more with you... you assume you know more than we;.. we have studied the orginal text have more than one scripture to support us and you just dont have anything to back you up except an opinion that thinks you know enough to judge our beliefs. no one needs to be told what to believe especially by someone who will not check out the original texts... so do start telling anyone they are right or wrong you don[t have the authority to do so...
I will be the first to admit there is not a lot of scriptual support,albeit it is in the Hebrew/Greek manuscripts an was known to apostles. It is what is meant when scripture says "before the foundation" foundation of what? this present age/worldAnd it is what 2 Peter 3:5-3:7 is referring to NOT Noah's Flood.It is also in Genisis1:2 though again you need to understand Hebrew word for "WAS" is Hayah meaning "Became" the earth became void. Well something can't become anything unless it was something before. Why isn't it more clear in Gods word? Why isn't more said about it? Because it is not of greatest importance to us in this age. God wants us to learn his word about this age not dwell on what has already passed. Then why mention it at all? Because God promises to tell us all things. So what does this tell? It tells us why Satan was rebelling from the begining,there was already a war going on, It tells us we were in spirit bodies before the foundation of the world. It tells us WHY we are in this age and physical body,because 1/3 of us followed Satan's rebellion in the first earth age so rather than kill a third of his children, our loving God choose to make us flesh give us a free will, give us his word as a guide, and all must choose who they will follow.This brings us to this present age and this is where God wants our attention.Does any of this change the word of the Bible. NO! not really it just gives us a better picture of who we are. So believe it or not but put it in the back of your mind and when you ask yourself how did God know us before we were born,before the foundations? Why was Satan rebelling so that he was attacking from the beginning, Why are we in the flesh if we all have spirit bodies? Know that God has answered these questions for you. And as a bonus though not of any concern to God it explains how science and the Bible are not at odds at all. With that lets move on to.The beginning of this earth age where God wants our attention.. Jhn 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 1Pe 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
(kriss;9692)
It is also in Genisis1:1 though again you need to understand Hebrew word Tohu meaning "Became" the earth became void. Well something can't become anything unless it was something before.
Please clarify. Are you saying Tohu means "became"?
It is also in Genisis1:1 though again you need to understand Hebrew word Tohu meaning "Became" the earth became void. Well something can't become anything unless it was something before.
Please clarify. Are you saying Tohu means "became"?
(writer4hisglory;9675)
On for a brief moment. Bet, Kriss, the way that you are defending your argument is by telling me that I am not able to grasp the meaning of the text because I have to look for something that isn't plainly there. What? Is God the author of confusion? If God means for the mountains to be nations and stars to be angels, then He will reveal that in His word. But, if He simply says that He is speaking about a mountain or about the stars, then I must take Him at His word and assume nothing further - to do so would be known as eisegesis, or reading into the text what is not there. I believe that there is one proper hermenuetic, and that is a literal, historical and contextual approach to the Word of God. Your method is not so. Back to the topic, which you still have yet to adequately support by clear teachings within scripture: the earth existing for billions of years. You have given me 2Peter, which I have clearly shown to be speaking of Noah's flood. I have yet to look at Jeremiah, but this too, in context, is speaking of Israel, not a pre-existing race of souls, angels and dinosaurs. (sigh) The arguments that you present would, honestly put (and I do not mean to offend, though it shall nonetheless) be laughed out of any higher education institution. They are not founded.
You speak of hermenuetics and exegesis. I learned a bit about exegesis and discovered it is a feat nearly impossible to do unless one is a Biblical scholar and can interpret ancient texts in Hebrew. I believe It is the process of comparing a syntax of verses in the Bible to other literature written at the time, and then determining whether the content is historical, allegory, poetry....It's funny because I once had a thestic evolutionist name 'exegesis' as the means to proving that the Bible is errant, but it became clear that what she was saying was TE rhetoric, something she heard by word of mouth. But other than th edefinition of the word, and uderstanding how it works, I am ignorant about exegesis. But really, the topic question is so silly, Betchevy.
On for a brief moment. Bet, Kriss, the way that you are defending your argument is by telling me that I am not able to grasp the meaning of the text because I have to look for something that isn't plainly there. What? Is God the author of confusion? If God means for the mountains to be nations and stars to be angels, then He will reveal that in His word. But, if He simply says that He is speaking about a mountain or about the stars, then I must take Him at His word and assume nothing further - to do so would be known as eisegesis, or reading into the text what is not there. I believe that there is one proper hermenuetic, and that is a literal, historical and contextual approach to the Word of God. Your method is not so. Back to the topic, which you still have yet to adequately support by clear teachings within scripture: the earth existing for billions of years. You have given me 2Peter, which I have clearly shown to be speaking of Noah's flood. I have yet to look at Jeremiah, but this too, in context, is speaking of Israel, not a pre-existing race of souls, angels and dinosaurs. (sigh) The arguments that you present would, honestly put (and I do not mean to offend, though it shall nonetheless) be laughed out of any higher education institution. They are not founded.
You speak of hermenuetics and exegesis. I learned a bit about exegesis and discovered it is a feat nearly impossible to do unless one is a Biblical scholar and can interpret ancient texts in Hebrew. I believe It is the process of comparing a syntax of verses in the Bible to other literature written at the time, and then determining whether the content is historical, allegory, poetry....It's funny because I once had a thestic evolutionist name 'exegesis' as the means to proving that the Bible is errant, but it became clear that what she was saying was TE rhetoric, something she heard by word of mouth. But other than th edefinition of the word, and uderstanding how it works, I am ignorant about exegesis. But really, the topic question is so silly, Betchevy.
Tohuw there does, yes. The bigger word that is indicative of what's behind it all comes with the Hebrew Hayah which is rendered was in most Bibles. You'll find it in Strong's #1961 in the Hebrew lexicon. http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?...on&isindex=1961 Combine that with Isaiah 45:18-19 where the same words are used and I cannot go back to believing that it all began right there. God did not create the world in tohuw and bohuw.
First , writer have you ever as child played the pass it along game where one person tells into the ear of the next around the room until the last who tells the tale out loud and it is seldom the same as the beginning ? Its a silly game but proves a truth, the more you edit anything the farther you are from the orignal meaning..Kirss' statment that you do not have ears to hear is beause you cling to these interpretations and refuse to try to even look to the original word... how else can she feel about you when you refuse to see or hear what God orignally intended but rather cling to teachings of men....I do have little patience when people use big words to cover ignorance... and learned a lesson recently about argument for arguments sake... its not good for the babes who come here to learn,,, and it does not help the debaters either.. neither learns anything except how to debate better..and that is not why I come here, is it why you do?.To shingy, this thread came from a discussion in the shout box between myself Kriss, Jag, and writer over the age of the earth... writer says the scientists are wrong and the earth is only 6000 years old and that all the dinosuars were really just big lizards and were killed by the flood of Noah... hence the name of the thread... Glad you found it so funny, hope you continue to laugh over it for days..sorry I couldn't give you a rollercoaster ride too...
If was is really became then choose which verses sound betterGen 26:28 And they said, We saw certainly that the LORD became with thee: and we said, Let there be now an oath between us, even between us and thee, and let us make a covenant with thee; ORGen 26:28 And they said, We saw certainly that the LORD was with thee: and we said, Let there be now an oath between us, even between us and thee, and let us make a covenant with thee; Gen 30:29 And he said unto him, Thou knowest how I have served thee, and how thy cattle became with me. ORGen 30:29 And he said unto him, Thou knowest how I have served thee, and how thy cattle was with me. Gen 35:16 And they journeyed from Bethel; and there became but a little way to come to Ephrath: and Rachel travailed, and she had hard labor. ORGen 35:16 And they journeyed from Bethel; and there was but a little way to come to Ephrath: and Rachel travailed, and she had hard labor. Gen 38:21 Then he asked the men of that place, saying, Where is the harlot, that was openly by the way side? And they said, There became no harlot in this place. ORGen 38:21 Then he asked the men of that place, saying, Where is the harlot, that was openly by the way side? And they said, There was no harlot in this place. Gen 39:2 And the LORD became with Joseph... and he became in the house of his master the Egyptian. ORGen 39:2 And the LORD was with Joseph... and he was in the house of his master the Egyptian. These are just 5 examples from the book of Genesis alone; now after reading, which one do you prefer;Gen 1:2 And the earth became without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. ORGen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. I think the Translators got this one right, what about you?
We are talking about going back to the orginal language not the original translation Kendal. And in trying to prove me wrong you shore up my point instead . For you never went back to read the whole thread ,you only read my post and reacted to it as you usually do....you never went back to see what we orignally were speaking of... going back to the orignal language which as you can see below can make a huge difference and that is what we were discussing:Isa.40:3-8 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. 4 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: 5 And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it. 6 The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field: 7 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass. 8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. wilderness H4057 midbar (mid-bawr') From H1696 in the sense of driving; a pasture (that is, open field, whither cattle are driven); by implication a desert; also speech (including its organs): - desert, south, speech, wilderness.H1696 dabar (daw-bar') A primitive root; perhaps properly to arrange; but used figuratively (of words) to speak; rarely (in a destructive sense) to subdue: - answer, appoint, bid, command, commune, declare, destroy, give, name, promise, pronounce, rehearse, say, speak, be spokesman, subdue, talk, teach, tell, think, use [entreaties], utter, X well, X work.**********************************************************************************************Hosea 2:15 And I will give her her vineyards from thence, and the valley of Achor for a door of hope: and she shall sing there, as in the days of her youth, and as in the day when she came up out of the land of Egypt. (CB) Achor = trouble.**********************************************************************************************Hosea 2:16 And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, that thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali. (CB) Ishi = My husband.(CB) Baali = My lord.Hosea 2:17 For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name. **********************************************************************************************II Corinthians 11:3 "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." In other words, you turn away from the simplicity of reading God's Word. The word "beguiled" in the Strong's Greek dictionary is # 1818; "exapatao, ex-ap-at ah-o, from 1537 and 538, to seduce wholly, to beguile, deceive." In # 1537 we read; "ex, shows point of origin".***********************************************************************************************Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. God's command to Eve was; "neither shall ye touch it." In the Hebrew text the number for this word "touch" is # 5060 in the Strong's Hebrew dictionary. It reads; "Naga, neh-gah; a prime root, prop. to touch, i.e., lay the hand upon (for the purpose; euphemism, to lie with a woman), to reach, "**********************************************************************************************Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; 802(the woman) 7208(raised or lifted up) 6086(the tree, the firm stick, eyes shut, spine) 2896(good, beautiful) 3978(eatable, consumed, devour) huw(he, she, it) 2530(delight, lust, beauty, covet) 5869(eyes, fountain, knowledge) 6086(tree, hard stick, spine, eyes shut) 8378(desire, lust) 7919(instruction, teaching) 3947(take, mingle, learn, receive instruction) 6529(bough, bear fruit, bring forth) 398(eat, consume, feed) 5414(give, deliver up) 1571(gather, again, in likewise manner) 375(how, when, where, assemble themselves together)I appreciate my brothers and sister who did this researh for me to cut and pasteand thanks Kendal for your usual response helped prove a point this time....
(kendal)
Gen 39:2 And the LORD became with Joseph... and he became in the house of his master the Egyptian.
This is an interesting choice to discuss the word hayah, but you need to leave in the middle of that verse. Here is the full verse:Genesis 39:2 The LORD was with Joseph, so he became a successful man. And he was in the house of his master, the Egyptian.The translation above ought to make it clear. Hayah is in here three times, twice as “was” and once as “became”. It is in the same Hebrew form in all three, yet the translation I quoted (NASB) does not render it by the same words. Perhaps you can see that it can mean became or it can mean was. The translator is figuring that out by context, we can suppose. Thus, your point is that sometimes hayah is translated with “became” and sometimes it isn’t. So you think in Gen 1:2 it should be translated as “was”. Correct?
Gen 39:2 And the LORD became with Joseph... and he became in the house of his master the Egyptian.
This is an interesting choice to discuss the word hayah, but you need to leave in the middle of that verse. Here is the full verse:Genesis 39:2 The LORD was with Joseph, so he became a successful man. And he was in the house of his master, the Egyptian.The translation above ought to make it clear. Hayah is in here three times, twice as “was” and once as “became”. It is in the same Hebrew form in all three, yet the translation I quoted (NASB) does not render it by the same words. Perhaps you can see that it can mean became or it can mean was. The translator is figuring that out by context, we can suppose. Thus, your point is that sometimes hayah is translated with “became” and sometimes it isn’t. So you think in Gen 1:2 it should be translated as “was”. Correct?
B'midbar is correct and scholars have argued this for years and if "hayha" were the only reference/argument to this fact we would never know which is correct. But we also have 2 Peter: 5 But it is hid from them willing this thing, that heavens were before, and the earth of water was standing by water, by God's word [that heavens were first, and the earth of water and by water being, or standing, together by God's word]; 6 by which [things] that same world cleansed, then by water perished. 7 But the heavens that now be, and the earth, be kept by the same word, and be reserved to fire into the day of doom and perdition of wicked men. [Forsooth the heavens that now be, and the earth, by the same word put again, be kept to fire into the day of doom and perdition of unpious men.] 8 But, ye most dear, this one thing be not hid to you [be not unknown], that one day with God is as a thousand years, and a thousand years be as one day [and a thousand years as one day]. this is from Wycliffe.N.T (not that I recommend this version all the time but as anyone who studies scripture some bible versions are clearer on point than others)this one just happens to be closer to the original)I also might ask how God foreknew us before the foundation of the world????not just moments before you were born BEFORE THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE WORLD??If we did not exist. I also pointed out that according to Bullinger when you see heavens in the plural it denotes the all (universe) if the context applies.I truly find this argument based on tradition alone quite ridiculous as if tradition is right then we must also believe that 2 Peter 3:8 is also a lie.2 Peter 3:8 says one day with God is a thousand years to man. So thereforeto believe Peter the creation week would be 7,000 human years long (7 days to God) making the earth closer to 14,000 years old than the traditional 6,000years.God not being the author of confusion, expects us to use our common sensethere is only one common sense solution here that there was a first earth age/world that was destroyed because of the rebellion that the creation week was 7,000 human years long. This does not conflict with scripture. It in fact makes scripture less confusing. It only flys in the face of tradition of men so who you going to believe Gods word or mens traditions of a 6,000 year old world. Seems simple to me.As I said it also agrees with science you can argue the accuracy of carbon dating till the cows come home. Having geology as a hobby knowing how long it takes to form some mountains and certain types of rocks,looking at all the sciences not just carbon dating. I find it hard to believe that anyone with any common sense can still be arguing for a 6,000 year old world simply based on tradition.Futhermore I have to ask to what means does it serve to hang on to this tradition of a 6,000 year old world when it is used as an argument against the existance of God by the secular world??? Why would we hang on to mens traditions when God himself never says this is true, and inturn futher nonbelievers, to have more reasons to reject Gods word.When God,common sense,science all says one thing and mens traditions say another it doesnt take being the sharpest knife in the drawer to figure out which side to come down on
Similar threads
