Ark of The Covenent Comment

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
21

[QUOTE=Nic2004]
I doubt anyone here would argue with you on the problems with translations over the millenia. It is the idea of putting unquestioning faith in a collection of Bronze Age myths handed down verbally through generations of illiterate and superstitious tribesmen; that are simply the collection or adaptation of much older myths from other cultures. The fact that there are certainly many cases of poor translation resulting in a uniformly innaccurate text make this unquestioning faith harder to understand.
[/QUOTE]

I understand. It is difficult and I think it’s supposed to be. We live in the “Age of Grace”. God doesn’t communicate with us the way He did thousands of years ago. In today’s world of science and technology our “enlightenment/knowledge” impedes us from believing in things we can’t see. That’s prophecy. Knowledge is increased in the end times.

Using the Hebrew and Greek Lexicons have unlocked things that have been a mystery to me for 30 years. I can’t prove anything and I will say that my belief is only valid IF God exists. If He doesn’t, I’m just an everyday nutjob.

22

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Then the only variable is time; and surely it would be better for everyone to be saved sooner?

Your suggestion of presenting points which “prove” the Bible is flawed is interesting. I would like to see this as a thread in GD; i’d be the first to admit i’m not an expert (or even a novice) in the Bible however, so i’d rather not be the one to start it.
[/QUOTE]

I hadn’t really thought of it that way, but I think you’re right. Time seems to be the most significant aspect of a metaphysical world (and gravity too :slight_smile: )

I don’t understand the “waiting”, but I think God has laid out a Plan - the Master Plan. The “Lamb/Christ” was slain from/before the creation of the world (Rev 13:8) and the serpent was created evil (“I have Created the destroyer to work havoc” Isaiah 54:16) God Created evil (Isaiah 45:7).

These things seem to indicate time is necessary for us to become “Like God” to “know Good and Evil”. Gen 3:22 (God knows Good and evil, so the intent for us to know the difference seems clear if we are to be made in His image).

23

I think I need to apologize for not digging into the purpose of this board. I happened to come across a link and there were so many questions in the mailbag about God, that I assumed something and I shouldn’t have. I’ll see if there’s a more appropriate thread. I know there’s nothing worse than some yahoo spouting religious rhetoric where it doesn’t belong. (I hate it when they come to my own door - “shhh…Marge (peaking out from behind the curtain) are they gone yet?”

Forgive me? :smack:

24

[QUOTE=sfworker]
I hadn’t really thought of it that way, but I think you’re right. Time seems to be the most significant aspect of a metaphysical world (and gravity too :slight_smile: )

I don’t understand the “waiting”, but I think God has laid out a Plan - the Master Plan. The “Lamb/Christ” was slain from/before the creation of the world (Rev 13:8) and the serpent was created evil (“I have Created the destroyer to work havoc” Isaiah 54:16) God Created evil (Isaiah 45:7).

These things seem to indicate time is necessary for us to become “Like God” to “know Good and Evil”. Gen 3:22 (God knows Good and evil, so the intent for us to know the difference seems clear if we are to be made in His image).
[/QUOTE]

I meant “physical/material world”, not “metaphysical”… :smack:

25

[QUOTE=sfworker]
Forgive my boldness but they’re wrong. Don’t take my word for it, ask God and see what He says. :slight_smile: (seriously though).

I’ll throw another one out there.

Tithing is unscriptural for the “Church”. Jesus didn’t tithe. (Free will offerings are good, but tithing 10% is OT / Levitical and always “of the earth”.)
[/QUOTE]

Okay, I did. and HE said “Ark? You mean the big boat thing?” I sez “No. I mean the golden box with the Ten Commandments in it”. And he goes “Oh, okay. Did it have a staff? Hell no. Jeez, do you think it looked like a pool cue box?”
Sorry.
I’d be interested in a more specific rebuttal than “They’re wrong”. That sounds like quite a bit of backup for an opposing position.

One of my old favorites is the satan, or Satan, or Lucifer. What is your take on this figure? As I understand it, he isn’t even mentioned in the OT until after Job. Some say he is mentioned in Job but he referred to as one of the Sons of God , in his court and doing his bidding. While this does sound like “the satan” as in “The Opposer” it certainly cannot be the angel cast out of heaven, no? If not, possibly Lucifer. But since this means “light-bringer” it certainly doesn’t sound like a fittingly scary name for the Master of Darkness. It seems like a little thing like EVIL INPERSONA would rate a mention a little earlier in the Bible. And while some are quick to point to the Garden of Eden, the OT simply calls that a serpent, one sent by God to do his bidding via the temptation. Which, on an aside, the whole “Do Not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” was stated to Adam before the creation of Eve. So to punish BILLIONS of women since then seems a bit unfair. But it depends I suppose. If you go by Genesis I HE created them, Male and Female together. But if you go by Genesis II HE had made Eden and then made all the animals to parade past Adam to name each one, and only then did he do the thing with the rib. After warning Adam about the Tree.
But, I digress. Thoughts?

26

[QUOTE=sfworker]
IF GOD EXISTS, then the Bible is flawless.
[/QUOTE]
A grotesque non-sequitur.
[QUOTE=sfworker]
The KJV was written in the early 1600’s and at that time the word hell meant “conceal/cover”.
[/QUOTE]
And a ludicrous error; the distant ancestor of the word “hell” probably meant “conceal/cover” around 1600, all right, but it was 1600 BC! King James’s men, 3200 years later, were not even aware that such a language as Proto-Indo-European had ever existed.

Posters should be aware that this individual does not in any way speak for small-o orthodox Christians.

27

[QUOTE=OneCentStamp]
Yes, especially considering that even now, in the 21st Century, literacy is far from a universal skill. How much worse must it have been in the Middle Ages, when the vast majority of common people, unable to obtain or read God’s Word for themselves, would have had to depend on the clergy to supply and interpret for them…oh, wait. Looks as if I just answered my own question. :dubious:
[/QUOTE]

Not that God couldn’t sovereignly unconfuse the languages He confused at the tower of Babel (See Acts, chapter 2), but there is something to the idea of having teachers. :wink: (…and preachers. See Romans 10:14)

28

[QUOTE=John W. Kennedy]
Posters should be aware that this individual does not in any way speak for small-o orthodox Christians.
[/QUOTE]
I think they do and are stocking up on chips and soda for when the rest of our theologians discover this thread. The hubris contained in

that tells me this will be a fun one.

29

[QUOTE=Nic2004]
Okay, I did. and HE said “Ark? You mean the big boat thing?” I sez “No. I mean the golden box with the Ten Commandments in it”. And he goes “Oh, okay. Did it have a staff? Hell no. Jeez, do you think it looked like a pool cue box?”
Sorry.
I’d be interested in a more specific rebuttal than “They’re wrong”. That sounds like quite a bit of backup for an opposing position.

One of my old favorites is the satan, or Satan, or Lucifer. What is your take on this figure? As I understand it, he isn’t even mentioned in the OT until after Job. Some say he is mentioned in Job but he referred to as one of the Sons of God , in his court and doing his bidding. While this does sound like “the satan” as in “The Opposer” it certainly cannot be the angel cast out of heaven, no? If not, possibly Lucifer. But since this means “light-bringer” it certainly doesn’t sound like a fittingly scary name for the Master of Darkness. It seems like a little thing like EVIL INPERSONA would rate a mention a little earlier in the Bible. And while some are quick to point to the Garden of Eden, the OT simply calls that a serpent, one sent by God to do his bidding via the temptation. Which, on an aside, the whole “Do Not eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” was stated to Adam before the creation of Eve. So to punish BILLIONS of women since then seems a bit unfair. But it depends I suppose. If you go by Genesis I HE created them, Male and Female together. But if you go by Genesis II HE had made Eden and then made all the animals to parade past Adam to name each one, and only then did he do the thing with the rib. After warning Adam about the Tree.
But, I digress. Thoughts?
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that’s a good one. Satan is the serpent of Genesis, but satan isn’t Lucifer. Satan in Hewbrew is the opposer or the accuser or adversary. I’ve heard so many preachers talk about satan’s fall from grace, but that isn’t scriptural.

Scripture says that the serpent was created evil (“By HIS SPIRIT He hath garnished the heavens; his HAND has FORMED THE CROOKED SERPENT” (Job 26:13)) (“He was a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44)) and also “Behold, I have created the smith that blows the coals in the fire, and that brings forth an instrument for His work, and I have CREATED THE WASTER TO DESTROY” (Isaiah 54:16).

Isaiah 14:12 begins to talk about Lucifer falling from Heaven, but Lucifer isn’t a reference to satan, it’s a description of the King of Babylon.

30

[QUOTE=John W. Kennedy]
A grotesque non-sequitur.And a ludicrous error; the distant ancestor of the word “hell” probably meant “conceal/cover” around 1600, all right, but it was 1600 BC! King James’s men, 3200 years later, were not even aware that such a language as Proto-Indo-European had ever existed.

Posters should be aware that this individual does not in any way speak for small-o orthodox Christians.
[/QUOTE]

You make this fun :slight_smile:

Which English language was it in 1600 BC that you’re referring to? :smiley: English isn’t that old…
The “hell” as the English used it in everyday life in the 1600’s:

Webster’s Twentieth Century Dictionary: “hell, n. [ME, helle; AS, hell, hell, from helan, to cover, conceal.]”

The “hell” of the 21st Century:

The American Heritage Collegiate Dictionary: “The abode of condemned souls and devils…the place of eternal punishment for the wicked after death, presided over by Satan…a state of separation from God…a place of evil, misery, discord, or destruction …torment, anguish.”

I speak for no one, save myself…but I try to never express my opinion, only those things I can verify.

31

[QUOTE=dropzone]
I think they do and are stocking up on chips and soda for when the rest of our theologians discover this thread. The hubris contained in that tells me this will be a fun one.
[/QUOTE]

Like I said - I’m not going to say anything I can’t prove…

32

[QUOTE=sfworker]
You make this fun :slight_smile:

Which English language was it in 1600 BC that you’re referring to? :smiley: English isn’t that old…

The “hell” as the English used it in everyday life in the 1600’s:

Webster’s Twentieth Century Dictionary: “hell, n. [ME, helle; AS, hell, hell, from helan, to cover, conceal.]”
[/QUOTE]

You need to learn how to read other people’s posts, as well as dictionaries. The previous post didn’t say there was an English language in 1600 BC, just that you’d have to go back that far for hell not to mean … well, hell.

Your dictionary snipped doesn’t say hell meant to cover, conceal in ME. It says it was spelled “helle” in ME and “hell” in Anglo-Saxon, and doesn’t actually mention a time for the “cover/conceal” meaning. My Websters Unabridged says it’s “akin” to Saxon “helan” to hide/cover, not that that’s where it’s from.

If you looked at some sources you’d find that:

a) Satans domain as a place with fire and brimstone predates the KJV by centuries.
b) The word “Hell” to mean the after/underworld predates the KJV by centuries.

33

[QUOTE=dropzone]
I think they do and are stocking up on chips and soda for when the rest of our theologians discover this thread. The hubris contained in that tells me this will be a fun one.
[/QUOTE]

“…the distant ancestor of the word “hell” probably meant “conceal/cover” around 1600, all right…”

This board is supposed to be dedicated to fighting ignorance, but then you get people who use words like “probably”. Something is either true or false. There’s no in-between when it comes to ignorance. If you can’t back it up it’s conjecture and doesn’t belong here. Right?

34

This does not follow logically. If the Muslims are right, then God exists AND the Bible is flawed.

But the truth is that the Bible contains numerous, demonstrable contradictions and errors (and they exist in their original languages) whether God exists or not. If you’d really like to pursue this, I would invite you to start a thread in our Great Debates forum.

I can read New Testament Greek. The context for the Greek word en in Hebrews 9:4 pretty clearly indicates a meaning of “inside.” That’s the first way that any Greek reader would intepret it. If any indication was intended to be implied that the listed items (which also included a pot of manna and the tablets themselves) were arrayed around or outside the ark, the proper Greek word to indicate that would have been ek (“outside”) or perhaps peri (“around”). Eis means “into” or “towards,” not “inside.” En indicates a fixed position “in” or “among,” while eis indicates motion “towards” or “into.” I would also point out that since the preposition en refers to an entire list of objects, and since that list includes the tablets of Moses (which was inarguably supposed to have been contained inside the ark), then the grammar dictates that Aarons staff be read as being contained inside the ark with the tablets and the manna.

I’m glad you have an interest in learning NT Greek, but you can’t really learn it from lexicons (even less so from concordences like Strong’s).

35

For the record, sfworker is actually right about the Christian concept of hell (as an eternal place of torment in an afterlife) not being Biblical. The words which are translated as such all have other meanings in Greek and Hebrew.

He’s wrong about the serpent being Satan, though. There was no such indication or intent in Genesis. It was just a talking snake. There was (and is) no “devil” in Judaism.

36

[QUOTE=naita]
You need to learn how to read other people’s posts, as well as dictionaries. The previous post didn’t say there was an English language in 1600 BC, just that you’d have to go back that far for hell not to mean … well, hell.

Your dictionary snipped doesn’t say hell meant to cover, conceal in ME. It says it was spelled “helle” in ME and “hell” in Anglo-Saxon, and doesn’t actually mention a time for the “cover/conceal” meaning. My Websters Unabridged says it’s “akin” to Saxon “helan” to hide/cover, not that that’s where it’s from.

If you looked at some sources you’d find that:

a) Satans domain as a place with fire and brimstone predates the KJV by centuries.
b) The word “Hell” to mean the after/underworld predates the KJV by centuries.
[/QUOTE]

My old Webster’s Twentieth Century Dictionary has this definition: “hell, n. [ME, helle; AS, hell, hell, from helan, to cover, conceal.]” To “cover” or “conceal.” That definition has at least some similarity to the Greek elements of hades: UN-PERCEIVED [the UNSEEN or IMPERCEPTIBLE].

Before the King James Bible, the old Anglo-Saxon word simply meant a dark, hidden, concealed, or covered hole in the ground.

FROM HELAN

In the 1600’s people stored vegetables in the ground (covered/concealed) for refrigeration and the common term for that was hell. That’s “root cellar” to you. Hell did not mean “fiery pit”.
GR. Hades means “unseen”. It’s not that difficult.

As to this “If you looked at some sources you’d find that:”

I’ve given specific references. What exactly does “some sources” mean?

As to your first statement, the poster wrote:

“And a ludicrous error; the distant ancestor of the word “hell” probably meant “conceal/cover” around 1600, all right, but it was 1600 BC!”

In a sense you’re correct, since sheol translated is “grave”. Sheol was a word in 1600 BC, but an Anglo-derivitive didn’t exist. Latin wasn’t widely in use until at least 240 BC, so no Anglo “version” of the word hell existed. It hadn’t been invented yet in 1600 BC.

:smack:

37

[QUOTE=sfworker]
Yeah, that’s a good one. Satan is the serpent of Genesis, but satan isn’t Lucifer. Satan in Hewbrew is the opposer or the accuser or adversary. I’ve heard so many preachers talk about satan’s fall from grace, but that isn’t scriptural.

Scripture says that the serpent was created evil (“By HIS SPIRIT He hath garnished the heavens; his HAND has FORMED THE CROOKED SERPENT” (Job 26:13)) (“He was a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44)) and also “Behold, I have created the smith that blows the coals in the fire, and that brings forth an instrument for His work, and I have CREATED THE WASTER TO DESTROY” (Isaiah 54:16).

Isaiah 14:12 begins to talk about Lucifer falling from Heaven, but Lucifer isn’t a reference to satan, it’s a description of the King of Babylon.
[/QUOTE]

My reasoning behind questioning the “scholars” is based on simple logic.

If there are 3 words with specific meanings:

  1. inside
  2. nearby
  3. outside

Why would the (very logical) Greeks use “nearby” to mean “inside” when there was a perfectly appropriate word to reflect “inside”?

i.e. Why use GR. “en” “in or near”, when GR. “eis” means specifically inside?

38

[QUOTE=sfworker]
My reasoning behind questioning the “scholars” is based on simple logic.

If there are 3 words with specific meanings:

  1. inside
  2. nearby
  3. outside

Why would the (very logical) Greeks use “nearby” to mean “inside” when there was a perfectly appropriate word to reflect “inside”?

i.e. Why use GR. “en” “in or near”, when GR. “eis” means specifically inside?
[/QUOTE]

See my post. eis indicates a direction of movement, not fixed position. maybe you should reflect for a moment on whether you actually have the requisite knowledge to be able to convincingly debate Greek translations with people who can actually..you know…read Greek.

39

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
For the record, sfworker is actually right about the Christian concept of hell (as an eternal place of torment in an afterlife) not being Biblical. The words which are translated as such all have other meanings in Greek and Hebrew.

He’s wrong about the serpent being Satan, though. There was no such indication or intent in Genesis. It was just a talking snake. There was (and is) no “devil” in Judaism.
[/QUOTE]

“There was (and is) no “devil” in Judaism”

First mentioned in 1 Ch. 21:1 Hebrew “satan {saw-tawn’}” which is a primitive root.

You’d have to remove 1 Chronicles and the Books of Job, Psalms and Zechariah for your statement to be true.

Satan first appears in Matthew in the NT and is GR “Satanas” with an Aramiac origin of “Satan” derived from the Hebrew root (see above).

I can concede the Hebrew word for serpent as used in Genesis - “nachash”, but if you trace that back to it’s origin it has the potential meaning of “The Practice of Divination” or possibly “Divination by Serpents”.

Regardless a “talking serpent” would make it unique.

Genesis may be metaphorical and the serpent represents the embodiment of evil and that clearly defines God’s purpose in His Creation of “the adversary”. Satan is referred to as a serpent throughout Scripture as well, so I don’t think it’s a stretch to make the connection. Satan is God’s Creation and was created evil for the purpose of showing the contrast between what God desires for us and what our human nature reflects.

40

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
This does not follow logically. If the Muslims are right, then God exists AND the Bible is flawed.

But the truth is that the Bible contains numerous, demonstrable contradictions and errors (and they exist in their original languages) whether God exists or not. If you’d really like to pursue this, I would invite you to start a thread in our Great Debates forum.

I can read New Testament Greek. The context for the Greek word en in Hebrews 9:4 pretty clearly indicates a meaning of “inside.” That’s the first way that any Greek reader would intepret it. If any indication was intended to be implied that the listed items (which also included a pot of manna and the tablets themselves) were arrayed around or outside the ark, the proper Greek word to indicate that would have been ek (“outside”) or perhaps peri (“around”). Eis means “into” or “towards,” not “inside.” En indicates a fixed position “in” or “among,” while eis indicates motion “towards” or “into.” I would also point out that since the preposition en refers to an entire list of objects, and since that list includes the tablets of Moses (which was inarguably supposed to have been contained inside the ark), then the grammar dictates that Aarons staff be read as being contained inside the ark with the tablets and the manna.

I’m glad you have an interest in learning NT Greek, but you can’t really learn it from lexicons (even less so from concordences like Strong’s).
[/QUOTE]

Rephrased:

If YWHW exists then the Torah and Septuagint are flawless because their Author is flawless.

I’m not a language student. My real interest is understanding Scripture. I went through something of a spiritual crisis a while back when I learned that the KJV went through 13 or so revisions to correct errors. I had to find out what Scripture really says. I actually only use Strong’s as a starting point and search out specific word meanings independently. Strong’s gets it wrong sometimes too, so you’re right I can’t rely on that alone.

“The context for the Greek word en in Hebrews 9:4 pretty clearly indicates a meaning of “inside.””

You may be right, but I don’t understand why they wouldn’t have used “eis” instead.