Do you believe in the literal word-for-word Genesis account of creation?

  • 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!

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
As Christians I thought we were supposed to believe the bible is infallible,wouldn't that open a door to Mr.ACLU ordained at the Universal life church or any other phony claiming to have a doctorate in ancient languages and a Christian claiming that other things in the bible were really metaphorical or that certian things are not sins or that God wants you to do as you please instead of obeying him?
Again, apples to oranges. You're making the right interpretation something that deals with salvation, and I hate to tell you but the Bible documents only one unforgivable sin for us Christians to commit. That one is in English as well. Now who is playing games and taking the word of man over the Bible? Luke 12:8Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say. Matthew 12:31Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
I was taught that God is almighty and can do anything and the bible is infallible.The literal Genesis account of creation is an example of God's power.
Give me a break here, I don't deny the creation described in Genesis. I just don't choose to limit God to a 6,000 year period when I can hold a fossil in my hand that dates from 10,000+ years ago. I've got arrowheads that are dated to 8,000 - 9,000 years ago. The KJV Bible is a truly wonderful thing, but that doesn't change that God's Word came to us originally in the Hebrew tounge. Since we have the resources available to us to learn this, then why sit on our hands and ignore it? I've got a copy of the Masoretic Text manuscript courtesy of Green's Interlinear and, in example, there are two very different words used for man. eth'ha'adam and ha'adam Eth is put before the subject of a definite noun. This should translate to Adam but the KJV translators missed this in a few locations. That's why they wrote a preface saying we did the best we could because they did a pretty darn good job. ha'adam refers to a race, the man.
 

Bamp;#39;midbar

New Member
Apr 5, 2007
164
0
0
78
(Denver;10855)
there are two very different words used for man. eth'ha'adam and ha'adam Eth is put before the subject of a definite noun. This should translate to Adam but the KJV translators missed this in a few locations. That's why they wrote a preface saying we did the best we could because they did a pretty darn good job. ha'adam refers to a race, the man.
This is a good opportunity to ask what is up with the et ha adam thing. I don't think you are saying that et ha adam always should translate as the one unique man Adam, so what are you saying? I understand the simplest meaning of et to be a direct object kind of marker or an emphasis kind of marker.
 

jamesrage

New Member
Apr 30, 2007
188
0
0
47
(kriss;10838)
Well that shows your lack of knowledge he is one of the foremost and most respected Biblical scholars of all time.
A biblical scholar does not equate to holy man,nor does it equate to some who actually believes in the bible.Biblical scholars from what I understand have once said the universe revolves around the earth or that the earth is flat.
If you dont want to reconize that your loss.It isnt about believing someone over Gods word its about gaining the full understanding of the original language.
The bible is considered God's word.The bible is considered infallible.Anyone can get go through the motions to get certain degrees, do research to prove his point of view and shove it down the throats of people as fact.A bogus Christian group called Faith in America is trying to use their so called experts to say that Jesus affirmed a gay couple.
For example:Take the word "mark" (as in mark the spot) there are 19 different Hebrew words all with slightly different meanings that are all translated in English as one single word "mark" you can not get the full meaning of scripture as it was written without going back to the original language.
I agree that a lot of words have additional meanings and that sometimes different words have similar meanings.God would say you may eat of any tree in the garden except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil if he meant if sex is the orginal sin while at the same time saying be fruitful and multiply.Last time I checked mankind does not reproduce asexually so sexual activity between a man and a woman would be necessary to be fruitful and multiply.
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
B'Midbar, I will gladly address your question when I have the text in front of me because I want to visually show what I am talking about. I'll try to have it to you later tonight.
A biblical scholar does not equate to holy man,nor does it equate to some who actually believes in the bible.Biblical scholars from what I understand have once said the universe revolves around the earth or that the earth is flat.
You judge him by his fruit. See the parable of the fig tree for that.This so called flat world nonsense is a myth taught courtesy of our wonderful indoctrination public school system. Very few people held this world view in its day. There was the belief in the geocentric universe, but that was disproven long ago by the same true science that shows us these fossils that are over 6,000 years old.
The bible is considered God's word.The bible is considered infallible.Anyone can get go through the motions to get certain degrees, do research to prove his point of view and shove it down the throats of people as fact.A bogus Christian group called Faith in America is trying to use their so called experts to say that Jesus affirmed a gay couple.
That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater though to put it bluntly. In each case you continue to take the extreme view which nobody here agrees with to illustrate your point.Using that logic, we shouldn't have any preachers, churches or anything else out there because there all false versions of each.
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
B'Midbar, I've included a screenshot of Genesis 1:26 and 1:27. The Strong's numbers are there at the top. Note very carefully that verse 26 uses ha'adam which speaks of mankind as a whole, including the races. This is because it specifically lacks the article. The word here is 'adam. Verse 27, on the otherhand, uses eth'ha'adam which translates to "the man Adam." eth can be thought of as meaning the very (exact) man Adam. The article and particle make it emphatic. What you said about eth is very true. It's a sort of emphasis for a specific noun and not a generalized term like mankind. Therefore, verse 26 and verse 27 are speaking about two different events. Chapter two sees a switch back to eth'ha'adam which is speaking of Adam. In many instances this is rendered man or the man when it is undoubtedly Adam. In most cases, it does not matter, but does provide for some of the confusion out there. Going back to Genesis 1:26-27 there are some additional notes to take notice of. In v26 they are made in the plural likeness and are then told to replenish the Earth. It's hard to replenish the Earth if it was never plenished in the First Earth Age. However, the biggest shift is from the singular to the plural in v27. It then goes on to say - and this is where the insertion of chapter interrupts the flow a bit - that he created them male and female. Adam is specifically referenced in the first part, but the second part refers to a plural creation of both male and female at the same time. God makes a distinction with Adam in Genesis 2 as a farmer. In Genesis 1:26 they are hunters and gatherers which signifies somewhat of a higher degree of intelligence on its own and a distinct separation from Genesis 1:26. This is why we need to know the Hebrew.
 

jamesrage

New Member
Apr 30, 2007
188
0
0
47
(Denver;10860)
Using that logic, we shouldn't have any preachers, churches or anything else out there because there all false versions of each.
There should be a litmus test for those wanting to be preachers/ministers and other position of church leadership and contracts that terminate them of their position if they go against the bible or if they try to pervert the bible.Because anyone can come it go through the motions and say hey I am preacher and God says gay marriage is okay drinking is okay and so is adultery.It happens all the time in various profession.Someone goes through the motions in order to get accepted by the institution in to have some sort of intellectual or religious authority attached to them, then they corrupt that institution.Whether it be a psychological institution of America,the military,public office,religious institutions,medical association and so on.
You judge him by his fruit. See the parable of the fig tree for that.
I don't know his fruit.The fact the man was scholar does not make him a devout Christian.People slap on what ever religious label they want on themselves all the time,it does not make them a believer.I see people posing as christians all the time in political forums.They use the "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" as some sort of sin-all-you-want Christ-opoly card or the judge not lest ye be judged yourself as a commandment to not tell someone they are sinning or they equate telling someone they are sinning as act of condemnation.
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There should be a litmus test for those wanting to be preachers/ministers and other position of church leadership and contracts that terminate them of their position if they go against the bible or if they try to pervert the bible.
Well what happens when the church system becomes corrupt? The Earthly systems that we have differ from the church. Simply because something is a majority does not make it right. Again, go back to 5/7 churches in Revelation as one example. There are plenty of others both Biblical and in real life. That's how people get excommunicated and rifts develop and denominations form. Christ himself said that he came to bring division.Hence the reason I am saying we know the person by their fruit. This really is getting to be a useless mess of posting because the same thing is being said over and over again. If you don't agree with the guy, fine. However, I have judged his fruit and a lot of it is very good. I find some departments lacking but his information collaborates with others including the original sources.I just find your argument to be very lacking here because it's boiling down to personal opinion. That's fine and dandy, but don't try and palm it off as somehow being the way it should be. Make your argument if you feel you are right and then leave it at that. The truth will find it's way to the front, you can be sure of that.You can know a person's fruit without playing God and judging them.
 

Bamp;#39;midbar

New Member
Apr 5, 2007
164
0
0
78
Thank you, Denver, for the post. This is not what I expected you to say, since I had (incorrectly) figured that since you think Adam was not created on the sixth day, that you would say it couldn’t be talking about Adam there on the sixth day. I am going to have to think about that one, why it would be talking about him on that day but not creating him, even though it says created. Here are places that et ha adam appears in the Hebrew. I’m not good with searching, so I can’t promise I got them all.Gen 1:27Gen 2:7Gen 2:8Gen 2:15Gen 3:24Gen 6:6Gen 6:7Gen 9:6Deuteronomy 5:242 Chr 6:18Ecc 7:29Isa 6:12Jer 27:5Zeph 1:3Zech 11:6So you think Gen 6:7 reads, “I will destroy Adam (et ha adam) whom I have created from the face of the land, from man (min adam) to beasts to creeping things…” I wish I were better at Hebrew, but I’m not. I am uncomfortable with the idea that all the translations out there get this wrong. I’m not good enough with Hebrew to say such a thing. Adam is dead before this, right? He only lived 930 years, and the flood was longer than that after Adam.I’ve been trying to write a coherent response here, but I am failing. Let me put down the other spot I have been thinking over, and maybe you can offer some light on it. How does this all relate to this spot in Gen 5?
KJV Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. 3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
Is this talking about Adam or those sixth day men? Anyway, this is the state of my confused thoughts. I’ve not made any headway for a bit, so I’ll just post what I’ve got, so that you know I have made a stab at thinking about it.
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
(jamesrage;10859)
A biblical scholar does not equate to holy man,nor does it equate to some who actually believes in the bible.Biblical scholars from what I understand have once said the universe revolves around the earth or that the earth is flat.The bible is considered God's word.The bible is considered infallible.Anyone can get go through the motions to get certain degrees, do research to prove his point of view and shove it down the throats of people as fact.A bogus Christian group called Faith in America is trying to use their so called experts to say that Jesus affirmed a gay couple.I agree that a lot of words have additional meanings and that sometimes different words have similar meanings.God would say you may eat of any tree in the garden except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil if he meant if sex is the orginal sin while at the same time saying be fruitful and multiply.Last time I checked mankind does not reproduce asexually so sexual activity between a man and a woman would be necessary to be fruitful and multiply.
I'm not even going to argue with you about Bullinger it is stupid he wrote the appendix's to the companion bible. Anyone who has ever gone to theologal school,studied for the ministiry or studied the bible has used his work at sometime. He is to bible lanuage as Edison or Ben Franklin was to electricity, thet didnt create it just helped us understand it. It isn't even important I only mentioned his name because of his exceptional work in the languages. The point is not to twist the word to say what we want but to gleen its entire meaning. Since you obviously have done little studying on this why are you arguing something you know nothing about? Just because its something you never been taught doesn't make it untrue if you don't want to believe it fine don't. But when you argue points you know nothing of with nonsense arguments its hard to take you serious.
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I'm following you just fine, B'Midbar. I agree that Genesis 1:27 can present somewhat of a roadblock, but why would God say that he created mankind with the plural 'in our image' and then created Adam in His own image? I just don't think this makes sense from a grammatical point of view for one. The answer, for me at least, is that this is God saying what he was already going to do and is later done in Genesis 2:7. God knew what he was going to do, everything was ordered.The eth'ha'adam of Genesis 6:7 couldn't be Adam, as you have noted; he would have already died. However, keep in mind what Genesis 5:1 is doing. It provides a strict lineage to Noah and this is the same line that would lead to Christ, called the last man. In fact, we know from Genesis 5:4 that Adam had other sons and daughters and so did his line. Knowing this, it must be talking about the Adamic line specifically. Adam wasn't alive, but his line sure was, we have that documented starting in 5:1. 5:1 is not eth'ha'adam because that article would not be needed if memory serves me right. After that, we go to Genesis 6:2...Genesis 6:1-2And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.Here is the ha'adam comes into play. This is the word being used here, not the 'adam which denotes mankind. This is speaking to Adam and his line. It still retains the article. It's not quite the emphasis of eth'ha'adam, but it also is not man as in mankind.Everyone else in Adam's line was corrupt with the exception of Noah (and of course) his wife. Noah didn't even have his first child until after he was 500.To sum it all up, Adam and Eve were part of mankind. Some people have thought that this means the Bible espouses some hogwash "super race" idea, but that's not the case. Adam and Eve were of mankind, but all of mankind was not of Adam and Eve.
 

jamesrage

New Member
Apr 30, 2007
188
0
0
47
(Denver;10881)
Well what happens when the church system becomes corrupt? The Earthly systems that we have differ from the church. Simply because something is a majority does not make it right. Again, go back to 5/7 churches in Revelation as one example. There are plenty of others both Biblical and in real life. That's how people get excommunicated and rifts develop and denominations form. Christ himself said that he came to bring division.Hence the reason I am saying we know the person by their fruit. This really is getting to be a useless mess of posting because the same thing is being said over and over again. If you don't agree with the guy, fine. However, I have judged his fruit and a lot of it is very good. I find some departments lacking but his information collaborates with others including the original sources.
What is his fruits?Was the man a devout Christian,or a devout Jew,was he a minister or a rabbi?If he was not either of those things and there is no proof of those things,the how can you trust the man's word regarding any part of the old testament?
I just find your argument to be very lacking here because it's boiling down to personal opinion.
A lot of things boils down to personal opinion and whose personal opinion about a particular subject that you choose to accept as fact.
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What is his fruits?Was the man a devout Christian,or a devout Jew,was he a minister or a rabbi?If he was not either of those things and there is no proof of those things,the how can you trust the man's word regarding any part of the old testament?
The man placed Scripture above false history that our secular schools try to teach us, placed Scripture above the feel good doctrines of men, and let Scripture interpret Scripture over telling stories.Simply because someone puts a label on themselves doesn't make it so. The same for when a group puts a label on someone. I don't see any verse about requiring a PhD or seminary to learn from the Bible. I don't see any verse about having to agree with the mainstream. Jesus certainly didn't and he ruffled some feathers to say the very least. He taught what was right.Afterall, Jesus never said to his disciples that you've gotta go through seminary before you can become fishers of men.Don't ever try to attack someone's credentials in regards to how much of a Christian they are/were. There's no degree on this Earth that is going to stand between anyone on this Earth when the Lord's Day comes. If you don't agree with them, then fine as I have said. However, this petty nonsense of titles is nothing.And since you like your titles.The man was ordained in the Anglican Church, traced his lineage back to Heinrich Bullinger who helped fuel the very reason we're where we are today, and was a low churchman in the Anglican episode. The Archbishop of Canterbury gave him a PhD citing his work.That's what little knowledge I have on the man because his titles and PhDs mean a hill of beans when I can look at the fruit of what he did and still does to this day because of his work.
 

betchevy

New Member
Jan 7, 2007
518
0
0
68
Ginsberg who translated the Massarah thought enough of Bullinger to ask him to work with him... He was the only non JEW to do so...His work is used in every seminary and Bible college, isn't that enough ? Do you also believe James Strong to be and unfit scholar, James?
 

jamesrage

New Member
Apr 30, 2007
188
0
0
47
(Denver;10941)
The man placed Scripture above false history that our secular schools try to teach us, placed Scripture above the feel good doctrines of men, and let Scripture interpret Scripture over telling stories.
I do not see how it can be false history when multiple translations say basically the same thing.American Standard-ASV1901GEN 2:16 And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:GEN 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.Bible in Basic EnglishGEN 2:16 And the Lord God gave the man orders, saying, You may freely take of the fruit of every tree of the garden:GEN 2:17 But of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you may not take; for on the day when you take of it, death will certainly come to you.King James VersionGEN 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:GEN 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.Youngs Literal TranslationGEN 2:16 And Jehovah God layeth a charge on the man, saying, `Of every tree of the garden eating thou dost eat; GEN 2:17 and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.' World English BibleGEN 2:16 Yahweh God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; GEN 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it; for in the day that you eat of it you will surely die." Darby English BibleGEN 2:16 And Jehovah Elohim commanded Man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou shalt freely eat;GEN 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt certainly die.Webster's BibleGEN 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:GEN 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest of it thou shalt surely die.Douay-RehimsGEN 2:16 And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat:GEN 2:17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. for in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.King James Version #2GEN 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: GEN 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Jewish Publication Society 1917 OTGEN 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying: 'Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat;GEN 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'
Simply because someone puts a label on themselves doesn't make it so. The same for when a group puts a label on someone. I don't see any verse about requiring a PhD or seminary to learn from the Bible. I don't see any verse about having to agree with the mainstream. Jesus certainly didn't and he ruffled some feathers to say the very least. He taught what was right.Afterall, Jesus never said to his disciples that you've gotta go through seminary before you can become fishers of men.
I totally agree
Don't ever try to attack someone's credentials in regards to how much of a Christian they are/were.
If they are no Christian then why on earth trust their word over that of the bible?
There's no degree on this Earth that is going to stand between anyone on this Earth when the Lord's Day comes. If you don't agree with them, then fine as I have said. However, this petty nonsense of titles is nothing.
It is not petty nonsense.The bible says to watch out for false prophets.Don't you agree that we should watch out for false prophets?If a man says something that contradicts the bible then his religious devotion should come into question.
And since you like your titles.The man was ordained in the Anglican Church, traced his lineage back to Heinrich Bullinger who helped fuel the very reason we're where we are today, and was a low churchman in the Anglican episode. The Archbishop of Canterbury gave him a PhD citing his work.That's what little knowledge I have on the man because his titles and PhDs mean a hill of beans when I can look at the fruit of what he did and still does to this day because of his work.
This is not about titles,I want to know whether or not the man was indeed a devout religious man.Strong preaching at a church or some record of him being a devout Christian would be indication that the man was indeed religious and his claims would have some weight to them.
 

jamesrage

New Member
Apr 30, 2007
188
0
0
47
(betchevy;10943)
Ginsberg who translated the Massarah thought enough of Bullinger to ask him to work with him... He was the only non JEW to do so...His work is used in every seminary and Bible college, isn't that enough ? Do you also believe James Strong to be and unfit scholar, James?
Scholar does not equal a religious man,nor does a religious man equal a scholar.
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I do not see how it can be false history when multiple translations say basically the same thing.
You're right, they do say it:Proverbs 3:13-18Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold. She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her. Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honour. Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honour. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her.Please point out the wisdom tree for me? The tree of life is simply not some mystical and occultic tree that God put in the midst of Eden. Revelation 22:2In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.Ever seen a tree grow on two sides of a river? Ever been around a tree that heals you magically? I haven't. Obviously it's talking about something else here but the word used is tree.Acts 2:28Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.Genesis 3:22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:John 14:6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.There's no other way. There's no tree to go pick a fruit from.Just in case you don't believe some verses, we can easily prove Jesus was indeed in the garden.I Peter 1:20But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
If they are no Christian then why on earth trust their word over that of the bible?
The Bible always comes first, if you choose to remain ignorant the languages that it was originally written in, then so be it. Don't criticize someone else who chooses otherwise, though. The truth is there in the KJV when you don't close your eyes to it.
This is not about titles,I want to know whether or not the man was indeed a devout religious man.Strong preaching at a church or some record of him being a devout Christian would be indication that the man was indeed religious and his claims would have some weight to them.
Might better add that only when you choose to believe it clause.
 

jamesrage

New Member
Apr 30, 2007
188
0
0
47
(Denver;10962)
You're right, they do say it:Proverbs 3:13-18Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold. She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her. Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honour. Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honour. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her.Please point out the wisdom tree for me? The tree of life is simply not some mystical and occultic tree that God put in the midst of Eden. Revelation 22:2In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.Ever seen a tree grow on two sides of a river? Ever been around a tree that heals you magically? I haven't. Obviously it's talking about something else here but the word used is tree.
If you believe in a almighty God that created everything,why is it impossible for you to believe that the things stated in the bible really happened?
The Bible always comes first, if you choose to remain ignorant the languages that it was originally written in, then so be it. Don't criticize someone else who chooses otherwise, though. The truth is there in the KJV when you don't close your eyes to it.
I am not being ignorant of the original languages the bible was originally written in.I find it hard to be lieve that the same same translations have been used for centuries and that even when multiple people have translated the bible it still basically says the same thing like in the example of the Genesis 2:16&17.The other translations of the bible were by men who were also experts.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Engli...Complete_Bibles * American Standard Version. Modern English, 1901. From the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus? * American King James Version. Modern English, 1999. Revision of the King James Version. * Amplified Bible. Modern English, 1965. Revision of the American Standard Version. * An American Translation. Modern English, 2000. 4th ed. From the Masoretic Text and various Greek texts. * Analytical-Literal Translation. Modern English. From the original Hebrew and Aramaic, and the Majority Text. * ArtScroll Tanakh: Old Testament. Modern English, 1996. From the Masoretic Text. * Bible in Basic English. Basic Modern English, 1949. Paraphrase of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? * The Bible in Living English. Modern English, 1972. From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? * Bishops' Bible. Early Modern English, 1568. From the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus? * Children's King James Version. Modern English. Revision of the King James Version. * Christian Community Bible, English version. Modern English, 1986. From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. * Complete Jewish Bible. Modern English, 1998. Paraphrase of the Jewish Publication Society of America Version (Old Testament), and from the original Greek (New Testament). * Complete Moffatt Bible. Modern English, 1935. From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. * Confraternity Bible. Modern English, 1941. Revision of the Challoner Revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible. * Contemporary English Version. Modern English, 1995. Paraphrase translation from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. * A Conservative Version. Modern English, 2005. From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. * Darby Bible. Modern English, 1890. From the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus? * Douai Bible. Early Modern English, 1609. From the Vulgate. * Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner Revision). Modern English, 1752. From the Vulgate. * EasyEnglish Bible. Basic Modern English, 2001. Paraphrase of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? * Easy-to-Read Version. Basic Modern English, 1989. Paraphrase of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? * English Jubilee 2000 Bible. Modern English. From the Reina-Valera, 1602 Edition. * English Standard Version. Modern English, 2001. From the Masoretic Text and a critical Greek New Testament text. * Ferrar Fenton Bible. Modern English, 1853. From the Masoretic Text and the Westcott and Hort Greek text * Geneva Bible. Early Modern English, 1560. From the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus. * God's Word (bible translation). Modern English, 1995. Paraphrase translation from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. * Good News Translation. Modern English, 1976. Paraphrase translation from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. * Great Bible. Early Modern English, 1539. From the Masoretic Text, the Textus Receptus, the Vulgate, and the Luther Bible. * Green's Literal Translation. Modern English. From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. * Holman Christian Standard Bible. Modern English, 2004. From a critical version of the Masoretic Text and the Nestle-Aland Text. * Jerusalem Bible. Modern English, 1966. From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem. * Jewish Publication Society of America Version: Old Testament. Modern English, 1917. From the Masoretic Text. * Judaica Press Tanakh: Old Testament. Modern English, 1963. From the Masoretic Text. * Julia E. Smith Parker Translation. Modern English, 1876. From the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus? * King James 2000 Version. Modern English, 2000. Revision of the King James Version. * King James Version. Early Modern English, 1611. From the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus. * Knox's Translation of the Vulgate. Modern English, 1955. From the Vulgate, with influence from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. * Lamsa Bible. Modern English, 1933. From the Peshitta. * The Living Bible. Modern English, 1971. Paraphrase of the American Standard Version. * The Message (Bible). Modern English, 2002. Paraphrase of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. * Matthew Bible. Early Modern English, 1537. From the Masoretic Text, the Textus Receptus, the Vulgate, the Luther Bible, and a French version. * Modern King James Version. Modern English, 1999. * The Modern Language Bible. Modern English, 1969. From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? * James Murdock's Translation of the Syriac Peshitta. Modern English. From the Peshitta. * New American Bible. Modern English, 1970. From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. * New American Standard Bible. Modern English, 1971. From a critical version of the Masoretic Text and the Nestle-Aland Text. * New Century Version. Basic Modern English, 1991. Paraphrase of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? * New English Bible. Modern English, 1970. From critical versions of the Masoretic Text and the Greek New Testament. * New English Translation. Modern English, 2005. From critical versions of the Masoretic Text and the Greek New Testament? * New International Reader's Version. Modern English, 1998. Paraphrase of the New International Version. * New International Version Inclusive Language Edition (NIVI). Modern English, 1996. Revision of the New International Version. * New International Version. Modern English, 1978. From critical versions of the Masoretic Text and the Greek New Testament. * New Jerusalem Bible. Modern English, 1985. From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with influence from the French La Bible de Jérusalem. * New Jewish Publication Society of America Version: Old Testament. Modern English, 1985. From the Masoretic Text. * New King James Version. Modern English, 1982. From the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus. * New Life Version. Modern English, 1986. From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? * New Living Translation. Modern English, 1996. Paraphrase translation from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. * New Revised Standard Version. Modern English, 1989. Revision of the Revised Standard Version. * New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. Modern English, 1950. From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. * Quaker Bible. Modern English, 1764. From the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus? * Recovery Version of the Bible. Modern English, 1985. Revision of the American Standard Version. * Restored Name King James Version. Modern English. * Revised Version. Modern English, 1885. Revision of the King James Version, but with a critical New Testament text. * Revised Standard Version. Modern English, 1952. From a critical version of the Masoretic Text and the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. * Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition. Modern English, 1966. Revision of the Revised Standard Version. * Revised English Bible. Modern English, 1987. Revision of the New English Bible. * Simplified English Bible. Basic Modern English. Paraphrase of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? * The Story Bible. Modern English. From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? * Taverner's Bible. Early Modern English, 1539. Minor revision of the Matthew Bible. * Thomson's Translation. Modern English, 1808. From the Septuagint and the Textus Receptus. * Today's New International Version. Modern English, 2005. Revision of the New International Version. * Third Millennium Bible. Early Modern English, 1998. Revision of the King James Version. * Tyndale Bible. Early Modern English, 1526. From either the Vulgate or from the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus. * Updated King James Version. Modern English, 2004. * A Voice In The Wilderness Holy Scriptures. Modern English, 2003. From the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? * Webster's Revision. Modern English, 1833. Revision of the King James Version. * Westminster Bible. Modern English, 1936. From the Vulgate. * Wyclif's Bible. Middle English, c. 1380. From the Vulgate. * Young's Literal Translation. Modern English, 1862. From the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus?
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If you believe in a almighty God that created everything,why is it impossible for you to believe that the things stated in the bible really happened?
Don't you mean why I don't buy into your fairytale version? I've answered that before, asking the same question over and over will merely get you the same answer. A lot of people try to set themselves up to be talking the truth, but they fail to substantiate it when the time really comes.I see no answer to the verses above that I quoted. I pointed out above that the word in Revelation is a tree - would love to give documentation if you need it. Guess what, it's not talking about a tree. Our Savior was not a tree with fruit on it.
I am not being ignorant of the original languages the bible was originally written in.I find it hard to be lieve that the same same translations have been used for centuries and that even when multiple people have translated the bible it still basically says the same thing like in the example of the Genesis 2:16&17.The other translations of the bible were by men who were also experts.
Common sense applies here please. There are some areas that the translation is a bit shady (they were men, afterall) but they did a wonderful job of it. The word tree is not translated improperly, I've never said that. The Hebrew word is for tree but it's a whole lot more complex than eating an apple and the Hebrew attests to that. It's our language that has tried to limit the capacity of God's Word. This would be a metaphor. It would not be the first time such a device was used by any stretch of the imagination. The keys are always there in the Bible to unlock it.If you're not ignorant of it, then why don't you show that? All you quoted so far is the same English, and that even supports the truth when you look at it like one should - such as the verses I posted above.
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
And by the way, for someone who claims to do his homework, you fail in so many places. Are you familiar with what community of scholars translates many of these modern versions.The one that denies that anything Pre-Judges period occurred. They deny the Exodus, they deny what we're talking about, and they deny everything that occurred in the wilderness. On top of that, they deny that prophecy exists. All of the prophecies that have unfolded are written after the fact. Furthermore, our Savior, Jesus the Christ, is nothing more than a famous figure that may have had a wife and a daughter. He may not have even been crucified. Oh, and it's only the Hebrew OT. I could go on, but these are enough for most.Hey, if you're comfortable, have it it though. As for me, I've studied under this community and had to get out of it. That's just the people translating the modern versions (50s and on, basically). Thank God we have the older versions!
 

jamesrage

New Member
Apr 30, 2007
188
0
0
47
(Denver;10966)
Don't you mean why I don't buy into your fairytale version?
It is not my fairy tale version, it is in the bible's version.Was Moses parting the red sea fairy tale too?What about the great flood and Noah's ark?Because there is no physical evidence today does that mean those other things described in the bible never happened?