AM writes:
An interpres translation of the text does not allow for “’adam” to be read as “a literal, individual, male human being.
I wanted you to be very specific about the above question then I was willing to let another expert such as ICANT have a chance to respond to that query. It appears that he has already by asking you a question about the "definition" of Interpres.
Further from my "lay" examination it appears that your explanation in paragraph 4 of post 136 does not indicate that the plural could not only include just Adam and Eve. In the instances in Gen 5:2 where Adam and Eve are refered as Adam, it appears that it could be refering to both them and the race "Adam-mankind" as a whole.
However in fairness I will let ICANT respond to this question with his expertise. Or atleast I hope he will.
It is not so much as that “all those scholars actually got it wrong”, it is that the Traditional, Orthodox interpretation must be upheld or many difficulties will begin to creep into the many religious orders and doctrines that have been established since the Persian Empire controlled the Holy Land in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE. After the Persians came the Greeks; after the Greeks came the Romans; and thus came into existence the Hellenization of the Hebrew and Judeo-Christian texts. Like artists, scholars and scribes were give work by the various Religious Sects who were in power at that time. Do you honestly think any scholar would translate any text in a manner that would threaten his job and quite likely his life? Why do you think the expositor method of translation became the most popular? Give it a little thought. That is not to say that God did not plan it this way. But, whether this is part of God’s plan or not that happens to be the way it is.
It seems as if you are saying something quite different than you did above. If they did not "all" get it wrong, it would follow that a literal translation is very possible. Since the Interpres is not the "written" in stone method of interpretation, they must have known this. In Gen 5:3 it seems as if the name Adam was given to a literal person, even if the word Adam means "mankind" of "humanity"
The rest of this paragraph is simply assertion, speculation and alot of personal opinion, at best. You would be so unobjective to call in to question the motives, scholarship and skills of those scholars without the slightest bit of evidence. Im sorry were you there and did you observe every detail of every aspect involved in the translation process and thier motives?
My personal “interpretation” of that interpres translation is secondary. I do my level best to keep my personal interpretations, opinions, and views out of any interpres translation I perform. If there are optional translations I have never failed to enlighten you to them.
It is not your interpretation of the text that I am questioning presently, it is your strick application and probable over application of an interprative method, (the interpres). Limiting a word definition to a single application, such as Adam and its general meaning, then saying it "cannot" mean an individual, I am sure is not correct in any sense. Again, does it violate Hebrew grammar to allow a real person to carry the name of the words definition, or are you being to strict in your interpretation methods?
As I stated to you before, I am sure that most translators, without continually exclaming to everyone, employ the interpres method, even if they do not call it that. They also initially look for the root meaning or a word and then let the context decide if it is literal or figuative, or both. you seem to stop at the root meaning, as in the case of "wet" and "dry", then proclaim, "thats It, thats all there is", without letting the context decide its status. I am sure and I suspect that most scholars employ the Interpres and Expository at the same time, without letting thier feeeling, personal opinions or interpretations get in the way, so as to be completly objective.
There is far too many indications in Gen. 2:4 thru 3:24 that the definite article prefixed ha’adam used predominantly throughout the Hebrew Text does not denote an individual male human being, and the designation chavah {Hellenic-Latin “Eve”} denotes the original “Tent-Village”; for in Hebrew villages, towns, cities, and countries are regarded as “feminine” since they are considered the “Mothers” & “Nurses” or “Helpers” of their inhabitants (Gesenius Hebrew Grammar & Ben-Yehuda’s Heb.-Eng. Dictionary). Compare the above to Gen. 3:20.
What are these indications, other than your opinion?
Since my above explanation was not sufficient; let’s look into these kinds of numbers and see if we can find out why the author chose the number 130. I am quite interested to learn what we may find.
OK
I translated the number as it is written in Scripture: — = thirty and one hundred years. There is no personal opinion injected into that translation. Now, together, let’s interpret what that number means; by use of personal opinion, personal ideas, personal research, etc. etc. etc.
I thought the Interpres would give us the exact meaning of 130. Do you mean to tell me it could mean something other than Onehundred&thirty, could it be a figuartive meaning of something Will we actually have to employ the dreaded Expository and Personal opinions to decide what 130 means? I get it now, so only parts of the text can have dual meanings?
So if you translate it exacally as 130 years, what prey tell could its odd ball designation refer to other than a persons age. Aperson imagination could quite literally run wild.
Further do not each of the OT characters names have a specific related defintion to something in reality, that refers to something in the real world, that is a general categorization of human existence and its parts. Do they also have to be figurative because thier name refers to something other than a real human being. With your method anything and everything could be and become figurative depending on your approach.
bertot writes:
Lets try this one more time AM. Reality is a product of creation. Creation is a product of God. Creation is an intervining "act" of God into physical reality. These properties are symbiotic in nature and design and cannot be seperated from any reality. No one is asking you disregard "reality" only to recognize that intervention is a part of reality both in nature and the scriptures.
AM wrote:The above paragraph is a contradiction of terms, according to the English Language. The “supernatural” is “not natural.” Reality is natural. Natural Reality is tangible, experiential, and objective. The “supernatural” {a.k.a. God, Supreme Being, Heavenly Father, The Highest} is a “Spirit” and therefore a subjective conception of Deity. I am not ruling out divine providence or intervention, but there is no way to qualify what that entails.
If this werent so serious it would actually be funny. It is you that has involved yourself in contradictions of terms, concepts and ideologies. You believe in an actual God, you further believe that God created the world and "sustains" it daily, and it would have to be intervention, for the sustaining act to have any meaning at all. Yet you cannot physically see him doing this and you have no way of proving this absolutley. Since you dont, that amounts to "faith", that things are the way they are because of God. In other words you believe in the supernatural by the things which you observe, and believe to be from a creator. It is not a contradiction of terms AM, if you believe essentially the samethings I do employing virtually the same methods, and you do.
Actual reality as you call it AM, according to your use of the terms "supernatual" and natural, would logically bring you no closer to "seeing" God having "create" anything. Since you did not see him do this, it amounts to as much as reading about it in a book. Im sorry my friend that is how logic works. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If my position is a contradiction of terms, so is yours, no matter how much you love and observe nature.
Actually though, you believe there is evidence to support his existence based on the things that exist and I believe there is evidence of miraculous intervention supported by the evidence that "sustains" the scriptures. Either both are good or niether are.
God, to me, is every “detail” that “corresponds exactly in every way to the physical world” that God and God alone created. God feeds the birds, causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust, clothes the grasses, and is kind to the unthankful and the evil. That pretty much puts every physical detail within the Authority of Almighty God. Where else can one find supportable, confirmable, Truth? You won’t find such truth in my opinions, or my interpretations unless those opinions and/or interpretations direct you to an experiential, tangible, confirmable, supportable, Reality/Truth. Am I wrong?
Bravo AM, that sounds both "natural" and "supernatural" all in one package. Please demonstrate how you would seperate these two ideas in the above beautiful statement. Did you notice the first word in your sentence is "God" (supernatural), the rest is about nature. My point exacally.
However, in response to my statement I did not say, that all physical things do not reside within the authority of God, they do. I said, every statement in scriptrue does not have to correspond directly with actual reality. Both can be within the authority of God and be correct and have proper interpretation. General revelation (nature) has its own interpretation and Specific revelation (Gods Word) has its own interpretation, they can be seperate yet in harmony.
more in the morning.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2