Scripture doesn’t actually say anything literally. You are reading an English translation which is already an interpretation of what someone thought the underlying Hebrew/Greek said. I just came across a good explanation a few days ago but can’t find it at the moment.
you just gave a transliteration (i.e. your interpretation), not a translations. linguist and Hebrew scholar would not agree in the slightest.
Do you realize what you are saying? Why even call something "scripture’ if it’s whatever you want it to say. Scripture has intended meaning in cultural context, which is literal meaning.
1 Like
The inheritance of humanity is outside biology? Really? So any given humanity that hasn’t had this so called “inheritance” of knowledge transmitted is not fully human? What is the difference between what we ARE (essential nature) and what we DO (behavior)? The essential nature of humanity is articulated by what humans DO, not by what we “SHOULD be”. How can humans be in the image of God if the are not ACTING in the image of God?
So the logic here is essentially: 1) humans think they are superior to animals, and that’s a fault 2) so we should be vegans (I assume you are since you think animals are “brothers” 3) Humans could run fast and developed cooperation so we should think them the same??
Is there any regard for the authority of scripture? Does Darwinian evolution have authority over scripture?
The definition of macro evolution is when two species are not longer able to reproduce a viable offspring. Neanderthal did not survive to produce viable offspring, evething valuable was assimilated into the human race. They are species that died out. Fact.
I did not say that ALL natural impulses were sin. To desire a drink of water is not sin! But to desire to kill another human for selfish gain is sin. For something to become a habit, there must be first an AIM that one is trending towards. It all depends if the AIM is sinful.
A quote I found.
We know some of the ancient context, but we don’t know all of it. You are aware that there are Hebrew words that no one knows how to translate as they are only used once.
And “scripture” doesn’t say anything about the intended meaning. In fact the OT was called “scripture” while it was being changed and before it was frozen into a canon.
2 Likes
I know God truly, but I do not know God fully. True knowledge does not mean exhaustive knowledge. As to your quote, when a “literalist” takes a verse of scripture out of context he has no knowledge. Context is important. But also words are semantics are important. Of course the bible wouldn’t say anything about intended meaning! If it has meaning it has no need to say its “intended meaning”!
Citation? What exactly was being changed?
Yes really! Because we are not just a biological species. Not in my way of thinking. But it is beginning to be clear that you prefer that way of thinking. But the fact is that we have another inheritance transmitted to the next generation by human communication. It is how we have such things as science.
Yep. Just because it has human shape and DNA does not make it a human being. It takes more than that. And this is infinitely better than your strawman notion that anyone not having been descended from one particular person is not human. Ideas spread faster and across all barriers. But even when it hasn’t, we value potential humanity and consider it a duty to teach such things to them.
Exactly! Our humanity is not in whether we meet some genetic criterion. We all remember when a group adopted that notion. It wasn’t pretty.
And as Jesus (and many others) have made it clear, how we behave comes from how we think.
What you list here is not any kind of logic, argument, or even summary of what I said. You asked if I was saying that homo sapiens before Adam were not human. I explained that they were human biologically, so if that is all you care about and equate to our humanity to this, then your answer is that they were human. But I don’t think that is all that matters, so I would not agree.
The evidence demonstrates that their descendants remain to this day and it is only this sub-species categorization which ceases to be relevant any more.
But then your “argument” (more of a rant really) falls apart for the direction of human evolution for a very long time has been the strategy of cooperation as social animals surpassing all other animals in this because of the use of language.
…
The way you are reacting suggests to me that you simply don’t want any reconciliation between science and Christianity. At least that is how seemed since it looked like you were grasping at any excuse to uphold this incompatibility you were seeing. It is what you expect from the creationists, who are likewise determined to find any excuse to reject evolution. Or from atheists who look for any excuse to reject Christianity. I found this a bit confusing and had to read some of your post to other people to get a clearer picture. My best guess now is you have some fixed notions about various things in both science and Christianity which you don’t like challenged. At times it seems you have a lot of anger but it is difficult to be sure not only where it is coming from but at what it is directed.
1 Like
At least you used the correct terms in the last sentence. It’s not science that creationists dismiss. It’s the philosophy of evolution.
Enslaved to your church inquisitions murdering everyone who disagrees with them is not science. Science means accepting the results of the written procedures which give the same results no matter what you want. Accepting what God tells us in all the data He sends us from the Earth and sky is where to find real faith. This willful ignorance which refuses to listen to anything which disagrees with you is just plain lying and comes from the devil who seeks to use religion as a tool of power to destroy the Earth.
Then stop murdering people. The churches stopped that centuries ago.
Not just religion. Anything he can twist, like the philosophy of evolution, which has never happened, in nature or in a lab. It has been disproven every time it was tested.
When moving between languages, transliteration takes across the sound of a word while translation takes across the meaning. So the Greek word θεός can be transliterated as theos and translated as “God.”
My summary comes from listening to Hebrew scholars, not being a Hebrew scholar. And much of it could be tweaked in different directions. Since both Hebrew words adam and enosh mean humanity, my version of “mortals” and “humanity” is just one option. It highlights how adam does put more stress on our fragility and connection to the earth, and allows the adam/adamah pun in Hebrew to come across a bit in Mortals/mud. Other quibbles could be that Adam/Mortals isn’t actually used as a name until the end of the account, how Eve/Life is not as tightly connected as the others (the words are similar rather than identical), or how Cain/Lance is more accurately “spear.” But all my choices are from the work of real scholars who know far more about this than I do. I selected but I didn’t create.
1 Like
See any of the standard text books on the formation of the Canon. I have gone blank on the title of the one I have and can’t seem to find it at the moment. Things are in a bit of a mess right now. I will continue the hunt and let you know when I find it.
Edit to add:
Found it. The Biblical Canon by Lee Martin McDonald. The basic process is writings were first considered authoritative and then later were considered canonical. The writings didn’t become fixed until they became part of the canon.
I’m a linguist and I work in Scripture translation. What Marshall said is totally legit and supported by Bible scholarship. English translations have translating traditions (when it comes to these things like how to translate the names in Genesis) that they follow for various reasons, none really having to do with linguistics per se. It’s more about convention and audience acceptability.
So then you are saying you think Adam was the first spiritual human, since he was the first one who had knowledge of God. I am not necessarily opposed to that, except if many humans before him and complex language and self-awareness its seems a bit cruel for God to not have a word with them or a relationship with them. But maybe he did and we didn’t know about it since they hadn’t been given a command and therefore were not under sin and accountability. So the other biological humans in Adam’s day became human when Adam and his children started interacting with them?
I don’t understand. You think God is cruel to animals? That God was cruel to create animals? That God is cruel to make some worms and some into birds… that sort of thing.
Of course, I don’t believe in any that. Life is a process of self organization, not design. They became what they and their ancestors learned and chose to become.
Or maybe you think God is cruel not to be a puppet which we can make dance as we choose, so that WE can decide who He should speak to because obviously we know better than He does who He should speak to.
Ideas and the mind are a gift of power and with power comes responsibility – ALWAYS. I mean look what happened with just a few generation mankind created a hell on earth where every thought and action was only evil continually. So… if you are going to accuse God, shouldn’t it be the other way around… that God was cruel to A&E because He spoke to them?
How do you fall without being corrupt?
I don’t know. How did Satan fall? I don’t think Adam’s desires for the tree of knowledge was a “corrupted desire from a sin nature”. There was nothing immoral about tree in itself, as if God was tempting Adams to do evil by highlighting something intrinsically evil he could do. It was a relational/spiritual choice in regards to trusting God’s timing and provision. There was nothing morally wrong with the tree of knowledge. God didn’t way “You can never eat of it”. Maybe God wanted him to grow and learn more in relationship with him and stay in dependence and grow in relationship before giving him more knowledge of that particular type. There is nothing immoral about being tempted, unless that temptation is brought previous sin which have damage normally health desire. Jesus was tempted and yet without sin. Jesus had desires and needs.
You’re not fallen until you fall.
Ah, so you fall due to a design fault.