100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: WHAT DOES THIS MEAN | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Thu 08/21/08 09:50 AM
|
|
i meant the word evil spidey, it was in the first printed bible GUTTENBERG and all the rest that followed bishops bible and the ones before and after - it was also from what i read the original meaning of the coyne greek - in aramaic im not sure. still even if you take it to mean - HARM- it still is an evil concept/thought, concidering the context of the placement where god is about to destroy his own chosen people, correct? any way, my point is that god is not supposed to be evil and jesus himself says for one to think of doing evil is sin - correct? so how is this explained? Exodus 32:14 And the lord repented [changed his mind]- of the >>> Evil <<< that ""he"" >> thought<<< to DO unto " HIS PEOPLE " Exodus wasn't written in Koine, it was written in Hebrew. In that verse, "ra'" is translated as evil. "ra'" is a noun in that case, so we check our handy dandy concordance and find... http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Exd&chapter=32&verse=14&version=KJV#14 2) evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity a) evil, distress, adversity b) evil, injury, wrong c) evil (ethical) Now which one sounds like the correct definition? We could make it the absolute worst possible definition (which you have determined to do) and say it means "evil". Or we could be accurate to the context of the verse and the entire Bible and translate "ra'" as one of the following: distress, misery, injury and/or calamity God sought to punish the Israelites for their behavior. If God is righteous, then his punishment would be righteous and couldn't possibly be described as "evil". But his punishment would surely have caused the Israelites distress, misery, injury and calamity. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Thu 08/21/08 10:27 AM
|
|
i meant the word evil spidey, it was in the first printed bible GUTTENBERG and all the rest that followed bishops bible and the ones before and after - it was also from what i read the original meaning of the coyne greek - in aramaic im not sure. still even if you take it to mean - HARM- it still is an evil concept/thought, concidering the context of the placement where god is about to destroy his own chosen people, correct? any way, my point is that god is not supposed to be evil and jesus himself says for one to think of doing evil is sin - correct? so how is this explained? Exodus 32:14 And the lord repented [changed his mind]- of the >>> Evil <<< that ""he"" >> thought<<< to DO unto " HIS PEOPLE " Exodus wasn't written in Koine, it was written in Hebrew. In that verse, "ra'" is translated as evil. "ra'" is a noun in that case, so we check our handy dandy concordance and find... http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Exd&chapter=32&verse=14&version=KJV#14 2) evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity a) evil, distress, adversity b) evil, injury, wrong c) evil (ethical) Now which one sounds like the correct definition? We could make it the absolute worst possible definition (which you have determined to do) and say it means "evil". Or we could be accurate to the context of the verse and the entire Bible and translate "ra'" as one of the following: distress, misery, injury and/or calamity God sought to punish the Israelites for their behavior. If God is righteous, then his punishment would be righteous and couldn't possibly be described as "evil". But his punishment would surely have caused the Israelites distress, misery, injury and calamity. the above^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Would be the "results" of his actions - distress, misery, injury, calamity. The "thoughts" of god would have been that which were evil/harmful - that was ""his thoughts"". I didn't say it - he did - the writer. I don't see how thoughts of harm could be construed as being "righteous" my understanding of that word is to be in right standing? how can one be in right standing if they are thinking of doing harm to an entire people whether they offended him/god or not? And again i say jesus/god stated even if you think it your as guilty as doing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repent means to feel remorse or regret I don't know how ytou got that God "changed his mind" Yes well the implication is...God showing emotions means weakness. No so except in some people's minds. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The New American Standard Bible reflects the most accurate translation which is: So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people. ahhhh!!! i see, it's take the least offensive word that it could mean and apply it so that it makes god look better?? Now i understand exigesis much better. so we will let - evil,wicked, bad,injury, calamity, wrong, and the rest go - ok if thats what you like. harm still means to hurt something in some way. It's not about taking the least offensive word. It's about accurate translation. You can choose to either go with the newer, correct translation or you can go with an older, less accurate one. That's your choice. Less accurate? for almost 2000 yrs it was concidered accurate - HMM? was not the interpreter's of the word supposed to be being led by the spirit of god in fixing the words? If so, then how can >later< "translations" be more accurate that the original? Wouldn't it be more correct to take the original [ that which is closest to the time and understanding of what god intended for the reader to understand], than what later man further from that written at the beginning now decides is more correct? Is that not anything more than modern man tampering with what is supposed to be "spirit breathed" information from god himself? How can something said and written and interpreted by men lead by the spirit of god hold true for 2000 yrs, and then someone decide recently that these men lead by god and inspired to write the information down are now wrong? is this the old HYCAEIT standard again? I am surprised that the reason the ancient Hebrew text is better translated now than before evades you. It's simply called; more information available. You're posts have much more to do with your own personal criticism of the ancient Hebrew texts than they do with any knowledge of them. I suggest that you take a course in Biblical Archaeology before you continue to make more "inaccurate" statements. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the above^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Would be the "results" of his actions - distress, misery, injury, calamity. The "thoughts" of god would have been that which were evil/harmful - that was ""his thoughts"". I didn't say it - he did - the writer. I don't see how thoughts of harm could be construed as being "righteous" my understanding of that word is to be in right standing? how can one be in right standing if they are thinking of doing harm to an entire people whether they offended him/god or not? And again i say jesus/god stated even if you think it your as guilty as doing. Tribo, "And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." The ONLY actual words in this sentence in Hebrew are the following. Yahweh repented (nacham) evil (ra') promised (dabar) to do (a'sah) people ('am). The rest of the words are added so that the sentence makes sense in English. Could God plan to cause distress, misery, injury and/or calamity to the Israelites? Yes, he could. So your argument is invalid. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The New American Standard Bible reflects the most accurate translation which is: So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people. ahhhh!!! i see, it's take the least offensive word that it could mean and apply it so that it makes god look better?? Now i understand exigesis much better. so we will let - evil,wicked, bad,injury, calamity, wrong, and the rest go - ok if thats what you like. harm still means to hurt something in some way. It's not about taking the least offensive word. It's about accurate translation. You can choose to either go with the newer, correct translation or you can go with an older, less accurate one. That's your choice. Less accurate? for almost 2000 yrs it was concidered accurate - HMM? was not the interpreter's of the word supposed to be being led by the spirit of god in fixing the words? If so, then how can >later< "translations" be more accurate that the original? Wouldn't it be more correct to take the original [ that which is closest to the time and understanding of what god intended for the reader to understand], than what later man further from that written at the beginning now decides is more correct? Is that not anything more than modern man tampering with what is supposed to be "spirit breathed" information from god himself? How can something said and written and interpreted by men lead by the spirit of god hold true for 2000 yrs, and then someone decide recently that these men lead by god and inspired to write the information down are now wrong? is this the old HYCAEIT standard again? I am surprised that the reason the ancient Hebrew text is better translated now than before evades you. It's simply called; more information available. You're posts have much more to do with your own personal criticism of the ancient Hebrew texts than they do with any knowledge of them. I suggest that you take a course in Biblical Archaeology before you continue to make more "inaccurate" statements. i agree that you think it's inaccurate - the T.Receptus- and the word - states it can mean harm or the otheres spidey mentoned above or before you posted - it can also mean - [strongs} wicked, wickedness, bad, misery,injury,wrong,and more. what ever word is used either modern or ancient it shows god is thinking of and initially determined to "do away with his people" If i, using the same word [ with its various meanings] to describe the same "angry" "vengeful" actions towards a large group of people - what would you deem my thoughts to be? If all the people in the WTC were doing things against "my will" would you concider my actions evil if i was able to ram a plane into them and bring the structures down? What would you call me if i took thousands of lives on purose because those people "displeased" me? - "harmful? No? - then pick a word - any word? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the above^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Would be the "results" of his actions - distress, misery, injury, calamity. The "thoughts" of god would have been that which were evil/harmful - that was ""his thoughts"". I didn't say it - he did - the writer. I don't see how thoughts of harm could be construed as being "righteous" my understanding of that word is to be in right standing? how can one be in right standing if they are thinking of doing harm to an entire people whether they offended him/god or not? And again i say jesus/god stated even if you think it your as guilty as doing. Tribo, "And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." The ONLY actual words in this sentence in Hebrew are the following. Yahweh repented (nacham) evil (ra') promised (dabar) to do (a'sah) people ('am). The rest of the words are added so that the sentence makes sense in English. Could God plan to cause distress, misery, injury and/or calamity to the Israelites? Yes, he could. So your argument is invalid. I understand it's invalid to you spidey, i would exspect no less than that. But nothing you say negates what is said he is thinking or planning to do Nacham=repented evil=ra dabar=to do to do=a'sah people='am God repented-evil-todo-people no matter how you state it - it remains that God thought and intended to do evil/harm to his people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ancient Hebrew texts were originally an oral tradition handed down from generation to generation for thousands of years before they were put into written word. That there are contradictions and inconsistencies in the texts themselves is self-explanatory. They were all taken from an oral tradition/history.
I don't quite comprehend the picking apart of various texts when this fact is taken into consideration. Much of the Hebrew texts are faith based texts. The historical accuracy of the texts can only be proven or disproven in modern times through archaeological discovery. Archaeologists work every day on digs uncovering new material. To date, less than 5% of all middle-eastern archaeological finds that are out there have been discovered. As years pass, with more discoveries made, we will certainly become more enlightened as to the history of the middle eastern cultures. Historical and linguistic interpretations of ancient texts will continually be revised as these discoveries are made. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ancient Hebrew texts were originally an oral tradition handed down from generation to generation for thousands of years before they were put into written word. That there are contradictions and inconsistencies in the texts themselves is self-explanatory. They were all taken from an oral tradition/history. I don't quite comprehend the picking apart of various texts when this fact is taken into consideration. Much of the Hebrew texts are faith based texts. The historical accuracy of the texts can only be proven or disproven in modern times through archaeological discovery. Archaeologists work every day on digs uncovering new material. To date, less than 5% of all middle-eastern archaeological finds that are out there have been discovered. As years pass, with more discoveries made, we will certainly become more enlightened as to the history of the middle eastern cultures. Historical and linguistic interpretations of ancient texts will continually be revised as these discoveries are made. thnx then i will just continue to disreguard anything i read as being of what is really meant then. I will reguard it as stories. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ancient Hebrew texts were originally an oral tradition handed down from generation to generation for thousands of years before they were put into written word. That there are contradictions and inconsistencies in the texts themselves is self-explanatory. They were all taken from an oral tradition/history. I don't quite comprehend the picking apart of various texts when this fact is taken into consideration. Much of the Hebrew texts are faith based texts. The historical accuracy of the texts can only be proven or disproven in modern times through archaeological discovery. Archaeologists work every day on digs uncovering new material. To date, less than 5% of all middle-eastern archaeological finds that are out there have been discovered. As years pass, with more discoveries made, we will certainly become more enlightened as to the history of the middle eastern cultures. Historical and linguistic interpretations of ancient texts will continually be revised as these discoveries are made. thnx then i will just continue to disreguard anything i read as being of what is really meant then. I will reguard it as stories. You can choose to regard the texts in whatever way you decide. For most readers of the texts, they are faith based texts. For those that base their faith upon the texts, the texts are accepted as fact and without question. That is what faith is all about, accepting what is written through faith. Faith need no proof or it wouldn't be faith. To argue what one believes through their faith is pointless. To argue an archaeolgical discovery is accepted and ongoing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand it's invalid to you spidey, i would exspect no less than that. But nothing you say negates what is said he is thinking or planning to do Nacham=repented evil=ra dabar=to do to do=a'sah people='am God repented-evil-todo-people no matter how you state it - it remains that God thought and intended to do evil/harm to his people. Harm, yes. Evil, no. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand it's invalid to you spidey, i would exspect no less than that. But nothing you say negates what is said he is thinking or planning to do Nacham=repented evil=ra dabar=to do to do=a'sah people='am God repented-evil-todo-people no matter how you state it - it remains that God thought and intended to do evil/harm to his people. Harm, yes. Evil, no. it's ok spidey i'll take the post above yours to heart and just not take any of it seriously, treat it as hypotheticals of those who put faith in it - thnx |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 08/21/08 02:15 PM
|
|
The ancient Hebrew texts were originally an oral tradition handed down from generation to generation for thousands of years before they were put into written word. That there are contradictions and inconsistencies in the texts themselves is self-explanatory. They were all taken from an oral tradition/history. I don't quite comprehend the picking apart of various texts when this fact is taken into consideration. Much of the Hebrew texts are faith based texts. The historical accuracy of the texts can only be proven or disproven in modern times through archaeological discovery. Archaeologists work every day on digs uncovering new material. To date, less than 5% of all middle-eastern archaeological finds that are out there have been discovered. As years pass, with more discoveries made, we will certainly become more enlightened as to the history of the middle eastern cultures. Historical and linguistic interpretations of ancient texts will continually be revised as these discoveries are made. thnx then i will just continue to disreguard anything i read as being of what is really meant then. I will reguard it as stories. You can choose to regard the texts in whatever way you decide. For most readers of the texts, they are faith based texts. For those that base their faith upon the texts, the texts are accepted as fact and without question. That is what faith is all about, accepting what is written through faith. Faith need no proof or it wouldn't be faith. To argue what one believes through their faith is pointless. To argue an archaeolgical discovery is accepted and ongoing. BobbyJ said: "Faith need no proof or it wouldn't be faith." I think this statement is backwards. Faith has no proof and that is why it is not "fact" it cannot be called fact. People who believe something "on faith" would LOVE to have "proof." But there is none, so they call it "faith." BobbyJ said: "For most readers of the texts, they are faith based texts. For those that base their faith upon the texts, the texts are accepted as fact and without question." How or why would anyone accept the texts as fact without question? What do they have faith in? The text itself? Do they worship the texts? Why are they reluctant to question who the author was? Because they have accepted that the author is God and they are afraid to dare question God? Do they not think for themselves? Do they cower at the mention of an invisible God so much that they blindly accept anything they are told is the word of God? Where is there any proof of that? I don't understand that kind of blind non-questioning faith in a book written by men. Just men, not God. Men who cannot prove that God wrote the book but merely proclaimed such. I have faith. But not foolish faith in propaganda. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The New American Standard Bible reflects the most accurate translation which is: So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people. So now it is just a threat that he changed his mind about huh? I guess we should have been "thankful" that he did not do it and just not question it, right? Makes the author of the text fairly human in his views of how he percieves god to react huh? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JB, I wrote "Faith need no proof..." and you wrote "Faith has no proof...". Need no proof, has no proof? Either way, proof is not an issue with people of faith and what they believe. This is hardly getting it backwards.
I wrote "For most readers of the texts, they are faith based texts. For those that base their faith upon the texts, the texts are accepted as fact and without question." This statement is right on target and I stand by it. "I don't understand that kind of blind non-questioning faith in a book...". You are correct, JB. You do not understand. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The New American Standard Bible reflects the most accurate translation which is: So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people. So now it is just a threat that he changed his mind about huh? I guess we should have been "thankful" that he did not do it and just not question it, right? Makes the author of the text fairly human in his views of how he percieves god to react huh? You can read this and get out of it whatever you like. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 08/21/08 04:28 PM
|
|
JB, I wrote "Faith need no proof..." and you wrote "Faith has no proof...". Need no proof, has no proof? Either way, proof is not an issue with people of faith and what they believe. This is hardly getting it backwards. I wrote "For most readers of the texts, they are faith based texts. For those that base their faith upon the texts, the texts are accepted as fact and without question." This statement is right on target and I stand by it. "I don't understand that kind of blind non-questioning faith in a book...". You are correct, JB. You do not understand. I will reword it. I do understand blind faith coming from a small child for its parents. That faith is based on complete trust. I do understand faith that is learned from experience of a spiritual nature. I don't think blind unquestioning faith truly exists except in a naive child. An adult, no. A thinking person, no. Their faith is based on trust or personal experience. I doubt if it is blind faith for no reason at all, unless of course they are just brainwashed. People have faith for a reason. Perhaps they experienced what they perceived as a miracle of some kind, maybe on more that one occasion. Faith is based on either trust in an authority or experience. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JB, I wrote "Faith need no proof..." and you wrote "Faith has no proof...". Need no proof, has no proof? Either way, proof is not an issue with people of faith and what they believe. This is hardly getting it backwards. I wrote "For most readers of the texts, they are faith based texts. For those that base their faith upon the texts, the texts are accepted as fact and without question." This statement is right on target and I stand by it. "I don't understand that kind of blind non-questioning faith in a book...". You are correct, JB. You do not understand. I will reword it. I do understand blind faith coming from a small child for its parents. That faith is based on complete trust. I do understand faith that is learned from experience of a spiritual nature. I don't think blind unquestioning faith truly exists except in a naive child. An adult, no. A thinking person, no. Their faith is based on trust or personal experience. I doubt if it is blind faith for no reason at all, unless of course they are just brainwashed. People have faith for a reason. Perhaps they experienced what they perceived as a miracle of some kind, maybe on more that one occasion. Faith is based on either trust in an authority or experience. JB and of course that is why jesus said "you must become as a little child to enter the kingdom of heaven" - smart writers those Piso's huh? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Fri 08/22/08 11:33 AM
|
|
jb wrote:
People who believe something "on faith" would LOVE to have "proof." But there is none, so they call it "faith." I have to agree, i find it strange that if it is a faith based belief why any or all try to back it up with facts from man? Whyyy - would that be necessary? if it's faith it's faith? To try to include man's assumtions of archeology, history, and all else seem's a foolish thing to do if by faith alone the words are taken as absolute truth and unquestionable words of their creator. They already have the absolute truth - why debate it? AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! i forgot - others claim ""by faith"" to have the same """un-erring truth""" also - hmmmmmmm? So will let the 3 >>>monotheistic faith based<<< ""perfect truths"" of religions continue to war with each other JB, After all only one of the 3 is going to heaven anyway right? Which means either hell will be full of jews and muslims, or christians and jews, or or muslims and christians - how sad can faith and truths sound to the pagan searching for unbiased beliefs - 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 A little madness now and then is relished by the wisest men.
|
|
|
|
|
