Reply With Quote
if all the foreshadowing is as flimsy as the word Us, it's not much of a negation.
The point was that Judaism doesn't endorse the Trinity. And yet the Hebrew texts all the way back to Genesis retain Trinitarian foreshadowing. And how that fact would partially negate the accusation that people/translators/authors have changed the texts to suit their agendas.
if all the foreshadowing is as flimsy as the word Us, it's not much of a negation.
No... that's just the second of about 60 Trinitarian references in the Christian 'Old Testament' (i.e. the Jewish Canon)....if all the foreshadowing is as flimsy as the word Us, it's not much of a negation.
And listing them would be counterproductive as you would probably get caught trying to refute each one individually while losing sight of the more significant point: that they don't add value to the Jewish belief system and yet they've managed to remain in the texts.
regardless, it has been said only a truly intelligent person can hold apparently contradicting beliefs and be at peace. personally, i don't think the use of the word Us in that situation is any sort of foreshadowing unless whoever wrote is down wasn't much of an author.
"Us" conjugates with "Our" in that same sentence... It wasn't a translative error. It was written as such, because that's the way it was inspired. Furthermore, (and the point that you keep brushing aside) the phrase actually contradicts the JEWISH belief that JESUS (or the other en y being referenced) cannot also be GOD, since only GOD is GOD. And yet they keep printing the phrase as such. The allegation, if you remember, was that people have changed the sacred texts to make them fall in line with their belief structure. This or the other ~60 references have not been changed because translative integrity has managed to supercede interpretative agendas -- again negating the accusation. It's not as flimsy as you would want it to be when all things are considered.
Did you guys hear about the banana in the sky?
Well, I'm out for now.... I have to work....
it doesn't contradict unless you are desperate to believe it does. how about this - God was conversing with some of the seraphim and used the word Us. even if it is not a translative error the link to foreshadowing is flimsy - as far as Jews are concerned the new testament is not related to their sacred text. Some other religion co-opted their text and claimed it was the precursor to theirs. it's beyond arrogant to assume something like that.
I guess you haven't studied the progression of the actual books in the hebrew canon.
You have no idea of the types of references I'm talking about. Some are prophetic, some bear linguistic connotations, some are allegorical, some are historical (as would be the references to geneologies), some are symbolic, some are structural and others are direct. Again the bigger picture wasn't available to every individual author that contributed a 'book'/scroll to their society.... In fact some of the books were written without the foresight to know that the scrolls would eventually get included or compiled as part of a greater book. Yet they complement each other in so many ways...
Last edited by Phenomanul; 01-11-2007 at 02:20 PM.
sounds like an editor at work. in your case, you believe it to be a higher power - that's not necessarily true at all, but there's nothing wrong with believing that. people see a set of cir stances or occurrences, references, and attempt to make the evidence fit a pattern they see. that doesn't mean it's there. a word changed here or there can have a marked effect, and any one person overseeing a compilation would undoubtedly make sure it was consistent throughout if they really cared about what they were doing. i don't need a deep understanding of the hebrew canon to understand that.
Your assumption again is that someone or a group of people purposely changed the texts. I'm suggesting that this is something that would be considered highly sacriligious by any rabbinical scholar and hence avoided. Translative errors are one thing... editorial changes are quite another. In fact that is a grave and serious accusation of Jewish integrity. If editorial changes had been occurring all along as you claim then all Trinitarian references would have surely faded from the canon. Too many controversies could be swiftly subdued if certain passages didn't exist but the fact of the matter is that they do exist.
i'm not accusing rabbinical scholars of anything, but you can misconstrue all you want.
If the shoe fits (from the cultural context of the allegation)......
i was speaking of the christian bible as a whole, and you took it to mean merely the Jewish old testament because of my comment at the end.
The Christian Bible and the Jewish Bible don't differ with regards to the translation of the Hebrew texts, i.e. the Old Testament. Again, the point stands.
in my mind, us will never equal trinity. it implies plurality, but you assuming that to mean the trinity. implication is not fact, it's completely open to subjective interpretation. you choose to interpret it as negation of the jewish belief that jesus cannot be god. i think that's a wack interpretation with a flimsy subjective base.
Yeah... that along with the other 60 or so references.But whatever... it's all in the overall context... one you are conveniently choosing to ignore, or rather one you have no clue about.... Your argument severely lacks the contextual basis that would even allow for the plausibility of considering it as valid to be correct. Seraphims???? They just came in for a sentence and then disappeared???
The plurality that is applied to the subject (Us, Our) bounding the verb (make) would imply that plural en ies performed the action... I don't envision a seraphim (or any other celestial being for that matter) as having the creative or supernatural power for creating a being such as man. The grammar in Hebrew doesn't allow for the clause to be interpreted any other way. A plural en y created man, not a singular one... And the poignant statement again is the fact that Jewish scholars have not done away with this, or other similar phrases...
Apparently Phenomanul doesn't believe that man evolved from ape-like creatures. My opinion is that the fossil record indicates otherwise. Of course he doesn't believe any fossils are more than 70,000 years old. That, of course, is crazy talk.
you still have nothing connecting us and our to the trinity. it's speculation. just like my wild statement about seraphim. i don't disagree with the implication of plurality, i just think it's stupid to assume it's referring to the holy trinity just because the new testament has been tacked on to the old. if god is truly infinite, he can have manifold manifestations. it's pure conjecture to state it's foreshadowing of the trinity based on semantics.Yeah... that along with the other 60 or so references.
The plurality that is applied to the subject (Us, Our) bounding the verb (make) would imply that plural en ies performed the action... I don't envision a seraphim (or any other celestial being for that matter) as having the creative or supernatural power for creating a being such as man. The grammar in Hebrew doesn't allow for the clause to be interpreted any other way. A plural en y created man, not a singular one... And the poignant statement again is the fact that Jewish scholars have not done away with this, or other similar phrases...
All the references paint this picture... for the sake of the discussion we've only just covered this one (the second such reference).
Belief in Biblical truths is about an understanding of the revelation of who GOD is, His purpose, His plan, His attributes.... and how we fit into that plan. The entire bible paints this glorious picture throughout the Hebrew texts... as well as through the Gospels and the rest of the 'New Testament'. The whole, however, contains more grandeur than any of the individual texts could ever hope to provide by themselves. You may feel inclined to attribute this complimentary relationship to editorial handiwork. So be it. But that would suggest that even the most ancient new testament letters or do ents around (dated to a couple of centuries after Christ) would also have been changed. Oddly enough, many of the nuances you choose to disregard were discovered, or noticed, centuries afterward. Yet somehow no one went back to correct the few ancient do ents that the Vatican holds in their archives. The fact of the matter is you have already made up your mind on the matter.
My goal isn't to try to convince you to adopt my views or to try to dissuade you from your own... But while you may criticize my alleged stubborness to budge from my beliefs, you do not realize you are on the same boat.
You (or anyone else for that matter) never bothered to question why the explicit mention of the Ararat mountains as the biblical settling place for Noah's ark, is significant from the perspective of purpose and intent. Again, the odds that the dispersion of animals sent to ''replenish the earth" would occur at the earth's terracenter is 1 out of 19,400... again, hardly a given... You may say coincidence... I see purpose.
No editorial handiwork, (not even at the time that the King James Version of the bible was published) could have had access to the computational power required to determine that the Ararat Mountains held this highly significant distinction. Believe what you will.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 01-12-2007 at 01:14 AM.
If you want to believe that we evolved from apes... feel free to do so.
You are however correct in that I don't harbor that same belief. And no, I don't have the free time or the will power to explain my position from scratch all over again.
If you want to see my reasoning... you'll find it here, as it was discussed extensively:
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthre...ight=evolution
Never mind. I don't really want to read your opinion on why no fossils are over 70,000 years old. That is just an absolutely a ridiculous stand to have. You seem like an intelligent person, but your views on the fossil record are wack.
Because I'm pretty sure you've measured their age and understand all the intricacies of the methods being used. Don't let others do all the thinking for you.
Besides, I somewhat expected a dismissive response on your part considering that the particular thread I linked is rather long.
But fossils were only a small course of that discussion... the uniqueness of DNA, the constraints posed by bio-molecular kinetics, the amazing sensitivity of the Physical Constants of this universe and how they allow for our existence were all topics of discussion. Oh yeah and Random Guy's malaligned use of statistical probability.
But consider this; no naturally occuring fossilization processes are found in nature today, or in recent history. Scavenging and decay would have to quickly be removed from the equation for the process to even begin. And an animal would have to immediately be buried (completely) for it to be preserved. How then can we explain the existence of tens of thousands of fossils? Many mixed around.... Furthermore, it's interesting to note that many animals were preserved in anatomical positions or situations suggesting that their death was sudden (As in the case of woolly mamoths families that were found with food still in their mouths)...
In 1976, the complete fossil skeleton of a baleen whale was uncovered in Lompoc, California, crossing many geological layers (apparently “millions of years” of strata)? And no one asks the obvious question?
Fossil trees are often found in a position where a single fossil occupies many geologic layers at the same time. These are referred to as “polystrate fossil trees.” Are we supposed to believe that these trees died and remained partly buried for thousands or millions of years until they became completely buried and fossilized? I would like for someone to prove it to me by showing me a tree that was alive 10,000 or 20,000 years ago and is mostly (but not completely) buried in an upright position today.
A flood, which would cause massive amounts of earth movement, is a much better explanation for the unique placement of both of these fossil types. For example, the whale above that died or was killed could get temporarily stuck in an upright position and quickly buried. The same thing could happen to a tree.
Put simply, trees broken off during a flood would float until they became water-logged. Then, the denser (and larger diameter) root end of some of the trees would sink lower in the water, putting those trees in an upright position... Later, after completely sinking, the now upright trees would be buried in sediment. This happened to many trees when Mount St. Helens erupted. Any scuba diver in Spirit Lake (next to Mount St. Helens) can find many half-buried, upright trees (not stumps) in the bottom of the lake today.
But again believe what you will... keep on accepting everything you were fed in High School as unquestionable.
OH PUHLEEEAZE!!!
Regarding the Lompoc, CA whale:
The source of this myth comes from an article by someone named Russel written in 1976. If Creationists took the time to investigate this claim they would have discovered that the story lacked some very important information and took liberty with the facts. The whale skeleton was not found in a vertical position, but was actually lying at an angle 40 to 50 degrees from horizontal. Also, while the whale lied at an angle, it was actually horizontal to the strata bedding which at one time was the sea floor on which whale fell after its death. These facts were confirmed by inquiring with the people at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History who excavated the whale. Of course Creationists have conveniently left this point out.
But hey! Don't let facts get in the way of your argument!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions