katabole vs. themelios: Will the real foundation please be laid...

[Eleutheros]

My name is Dennis!

I put an exclamation mark after my name because I love being human, exactly as I was created to be.

Eleutheros (Strong's # 1658), my moniker, describes how I feel.

To the point then, here is the central theme:
It can be proven that the KJV interpreters translated that peculiar hell we are all familiar with into existence, by using a dishonest, translational slight-of-hand trick. They surreptitiously chose an Old English word, 'hell' -a verb that had previously been turned into a proper noun by those who translated Dante's Inferno into English- and used it to translate four other proper nouns that, in Greek and Hebrew, were the proper names of three different places, thus making these three different places appear, to the English reader, to be one and the same place... and Ta-da! Hell now exisits because the Bible tells me so!

They choose this verb-cum-noun deliberately for perceiving that it was already associated, in the English mind, with that mythological place, The Inferno, that sprang from the Italian writer, Dante's fertile, if not macabre imagination - a place as mythological, but, as well known, in it's time, as Mordor is in ours.

They also deliberately and painstakingly tortured the Greek noun aion and it's adjective, aionios, to make them read 'eternal' when and where it could be done to fit their ulterior purposes.
And were 'eternal' couldn't be made to fit, they chose any other English word but 'age', or, 'age-lasting' so that the English translation wouldn't become nonsensical.

And that against their knowing that the Greek language has a word for 'eternal' that could have been chosen by the original writers in place of aion; a word the original writers did choose, often enough and accurately enough, when 'eternal' was truly the idea they wanted to convey.

And historically speaking, the KJV interpreters were tasked by the power-hungry King James to produce an English translation of the cannon that would serve two purposes:
The first was to usurp the power of  The Holy Roman Church, who only used Latin to speak The Words in public, thus  keeping the commoners, who didn't know Latin, dependent on them to interpret The Words for them.
This idea of giving the commoners The Words in thier own language was a brilliant political move on the part of King James for knowing that once the commoners could read The Words for themselves they would discover the fact that they had been duped into following all that malarkey that they were told they needed to endure, for the sake of their soul's rescue from hell and rebel against the Pope and His cronnies, which they did.

The second reason was more ulterior and thus more diabolical. The English translation should reflect the theology of St. Augustine, recently made systematic by his sycophant, John Calvin and thus preserve the hierarchy necessary for a religion to work. However, this time the rule would be preserved under the King, not the Pope, through a new priesthood, loyal to the King, but, nonetheless one that still maintained it's power the tried and true way by also threatening the adherents with 'hell' if they crossed any line drawn by the 'priests', or 'pastors' as they were now ecumenically charged with being.
 
Now, given what I've read on Tentmaker, I don't think there is anyone here who will disagree with these facts. And so, to the point for why I wrote all that out, I ask:

"Given the deliberate, ulterior motivated dishonesty of the KJV interpreters, how can we trust the rest of their work? Indeed, why should we?

My answer is: I don't.

But many, I perceive, still do. And are, likely, unaware of it since I've never read or heard of anyone, ever, asking this question directly.

~

A lot has been written about Genesis 1-3, here on Tentmaker, with many varying interpretations, explanations and conclusions presented as facts to back the presenter's point.
I have  perceived, then, for reading a number of these posts, that many of these conclusions, presented as facts, are, either somewhat, or else entirely, at odds with each other. That is to say, these ideas would contradict each other, in their logical conclusions, should they be put toe to toe.

So, what else is new? Eh?

It has been said, facetiously, but truthfully, that logic is a way of arriving at an incorrect conclusion with certainty.

Funny, yes, but, you know it's true.

However, do you know why it's true?

I do.

And I will share that knowledge with you, in time. Unless, of course, someone else here knows why the use of logic often leads to innaccurate conclusions and wants to make this dirty little secret known, ahead of me, which thing I would welcome.

But, first, I want all of you to know that I am not a Greek or Hebrew scholar.

I am a nobody, both in The World and in The modern Christian Church.

I came to faith in Jesus Christ in the USAF soon after being caught smoking pot, again. Except the experience was real this time; much different and certainly not like when I walked the aisle, several times, an emotional wreck after hearing a sermon on hell and signed the 3x5 cards that declared me saved on whatever Sundays those were.

Therefore, I am a human, just like many of you, who, through faith in Jesus Christ- the only sexually begotten Son of His Father, Jehovah, who came, at the behest of His Father, to accomplish the forgiveness of sins through His death, burial and resurrection- experienced the forgiveness of a God Who is agape and was thus re-sired, through holy spirit, much like sperm creates a new life when it pentrates an ovum, to take His nature and thus be free to live my life unto Him, freed from sin and provided with a cleansed conscience, which then becomes my responsibility to maintain through confession, when I do sin, as well as through consistently choosing to do good, even as it prompts me to do it.

And this on-going thing, growing inside me, where I'm told the kingdom of the heavens is, has so changed the meaning of my life that, in an effort to understand what I was going through, I, too, learned to use Strong's and interlinears and dictionaries et.al. just like you did, in my own search, so that I might gain an understanding of the truth that was happening to me.

*Whew* That was a mouthful wasn't it? Did you like how I worked my theology, my understanding, into that statement and included you in with it? Pretty good, huh?

And so I ask, did what I type describe your experience with the God Who is agape, that is, 'fondness and affection'?

Or would you disagree, theologically, from your own understanding, or from the understanding of others, on some point or another, with what I have typed?

In other words, I'm asking: "What do you think of what I typed?"

It's OK, you can tell me, I won't get mad at you, or belittle you, or call you names because I'm not out to challenge you but, rather, I  am seeking for you to challenge me.

As iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another. A truth that works well among those who are wise.

And that is why I am asking you all this because I want to engage in a dialogue with you- any one of you, or, as many of you that wish- in which I will further present my own understanding of Genesis, for discussion and debate, that I might further hone my own understanding for the challenge.

And maybe help you hone your's as well.

The reason I start with Genesis is because it seems logical to me that if I get Genesis, the book of begninings, for that is it's very name in Hebrew, then I will also get everythig else The Words have to say.

And this I will say of my own understanding: Even as the title of this post contains the Greek words katabole (Strong's # 2602) and themelios (Strong's # 2310), words that help define my understanding, a search of the website using these words and the English words used to translate them, found no one who seems to have drawn the same conclusions I have.

Which means that my understanding will be unique. At least as unique as you may consider the understanding you have to be.

And so we are on equal footing, with each of us having an understanding that is our own and me wanting to hear your's and comapre it with mine.

With that said, then, I invite You, Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Jesus, to lead me into all truth.

Is the game afoot?

[Tim B]

Well, I really liked your account on the creation of the KJV. Very well written!

As far as reading it: I don't. I basically think, after learning about the history of it, as garbage. Perhaps beautifully written garbage, but garbage nonetheless.

As far as Hebrew and Greek, I wouldn't be one to consult on most of it. There's a lot more people on here who have been taught/taught themselves on these languages. God bless you in your search into Scriptures! 

[Cardinal]

  Welcome to the Tent, Dennis  Blessings....

[Beloved Servant]

Hi Dennis,
There is no game afoot.
One Truth, One Spirit — you know that.
Present the Word as the Spirit leads and you will meet your brothers in Christ.
Some in the world, some in the Seventh Heaven.

[Eleutheros]

Well, I really liked your account on the creation of the KJV. Very well written!

Thanks, Tim for the compliment! It's much appreciated.

As far as reading it: I don't. I basically think, after learning about the history of it, as garbage. Perhaps beautifully written garbage, but garbage nonetheless.

For the longest time I used the Amplified Bible, but still found myself quoting the KJV, with explanations, as I learned why this was a bad word choice, etc. And that's because the English does flow so very well with the KJV, (like with I Cor 13). And it should! After all it took them 117 years to 'get it right'! 

But even the Amplified proved inadequate after a while.

That was when I found the Concordant Literal Version or CLV. An amazing translation, even if it's not 'good English', for keeping the Greek aorist verb tense alive. I never realized how important that would be to understanding. And of course 'aion' is 'eon' and 'Gehenna' is well, 'Gehenna' etc.

I highly recommend it. And it sure is fun to read from when I meet with the ecclesia and someone asks, "Does anyone have a different translation?" 
 

As far as Hebrew and Greek, I wouldn't be one to consult on most of it. There's a lot more people on here who have been taught/taught themselves on these languages. God bless you in your search into Scriptures! 

Awwww, I'm sure we could have some fun, Tim! 'Cause I'm not looking for a scholar, just someone to share idea's with.

What if I asked you real nice like to share with me what you your thoughts are on Genesis 1-3?

For example I would imagine you've asked yourself questions like these:

Why two trees??

And why create the Tree of Life at all if Elohim already knew, before He created them, that He was going to have to banish them from eating it?

Why doesn't His foreknowledge of their turning make The Tree of Life a superfulous creation, at best and a deception at worst?

And why does The Tree of life return in The New Heaven and The New Earth (The New Universe) where all things are reconciled and restored to Jehovah?

Did The Adam have sex before the turning?

If not, then why not?

If so, then why didn't Ishsha get pregnant before the expulsion?

And how long were they in the Garden?? Thirty minutes as Saint Augustine declared? Or longer?

Why did Elohim have do things this way, i.e. create a uniquely named tree whose fruit He had to forbid them from eating?

Was something else supposed to happen, for them being 'set up', that didn't happen?

Why did the serpent's temptation work?

Was the serpent telling the truth in response to Ishsha's answer to his question, or lying?

Why does Paul insist Eve was the one responsible for the turning?

And what did Paul mean in that weird verse he wrote to Timothy about a woman being 'saved in childbirth'?

Why did Elohim have to create Ishsha by taking a 'rib' from Ish?

And why didn't Elohim have to breathe His Breath into her?

So, Tim, are you even a bit tempted now to tell me what you've secretly and quietly concluded about Genesis 1-3?

'Cause I know you and every other human who has read The Words, has asked these questions, or one's like it And isn't it a truth that everyone's answers are as different as we are?

Which leads me to ask: Do you think it's even possible for us to know the truthful answers to these questions?
I can ask them, which means I'm sentient, like you, but, is there, in truth, an understanding that makes sense even as it answers all the questions I can ask, without contradiction?

If so, then shouldn't we be trying to understand, till we do?

And if not, then why did Elohim go through the trouble of seeing to it that we have this account of the begining of the things we know?

Be good, Tim!

It's what you were created to be!

Dennis!

[Eleutheros]

Welcome to the Tent, Dennis  Blessings....

Thank you, Cardinal!

So, do you want to offer up your ideas? 

Be good!

Dennis!

[Eleutheros]

Hi Dennis,
There is no game afoot.
One Truth, One Spirit — you know that.

Yes, I do. And for that knowing, I can't help but ask: If this is true, which it is because truth is both singular in nature as well as knowable, then why is there so much contradiction in our personal understandings?

For it is also true that as (a man) thinks in his heart, so he is: Which is said in the context of a human with a begrudging heart.

So is it true, then, that because of what we think in our hearts, (for what is the heart if it is not the sum total of the thoughts that we act on?), that we contradict and argue with each other over our understandings and so we still do not know the truth?

I don't think so because the Spirit of Truth which is The Spirit of Jesus, is about knowing, through faith, without nessesarily understanding.

But what I do think is that we fail to acknowledge the truth that there are right and wrong ways of thinking, even as the writers of the Proverbs divide humans into two types, the wise and the foolish, based on how they think.

Present the Word as the Spirit leads and you will meet your brothers in Christ.

Do I understand what you are saying here to be that if I present my understanding, as statements of fact, (which I did, surreptitiously ) then I will find my 'brothers', that is those who would agree with me? Is that accurate?

Well, I thought I did do just that! It's just that I did so with questions (not a lot of statements) intended to invite others to think along with me- The good ol'fahioned Jewish way of teaching, don'tcah know? 

And so I'm very pleased to meet you!

So, what would you say if I invited you, also, to provide answers to the questions I asked from your own understanding?

For surely you have asked ones like it in your own search for truth? Eh?

And no, I didn't call you 'Shirley'!

You are a Beloved Servant, even as you have named yourself.

So, be good, even as you think.

Dennis!

[Beloved Servant]

If you like; I can share with you the name of a teacher that the Lord has brought to my life.
I stumble when I speak of my own accord.
Also, I did not name myself.
Beloved servant is the English translation of my actual name.

[Tim B]

Well, I really liked your account on the creation of the KJV. Very well written!

Thanks, Tim for the compliment! It's much appreciated.

As far as reading it: I don't. I basically think, after learning about the history of it, as garbage. Perhaps beautifully written garbage, but garbage nonetheless.

For the longest time I used the Amplified Bible, but still found myself quoting the KJV, with explanations, as I learned why this was a bad word choice, etc. And that's because the English does flow so very well with the KJV, (like with I Cor 13). And it should! After all it took them 117 years to 'get it right'! 

But even the Amplified proved inadequate after a while.

That was when I found the Concordant Literal Version or CLV. An amazing translation, even if it's not 'good English', for keeping the Greek aorist verb tense alive. I never realized how important that would be to understanding. And of course 'aion' is 'eon' and 'Gehenna' is well, 'Gehenna' etc.

I highly recommend it. And it sure is fun to read from when I meet with the ecclesia and someone asks, "Does anyone have a different translation?" 
 

As far as Hebrew and Greek, I wouldn't be one to consult on most of it. There's a lot more people on here who have been taught/taught themselves on these languages. God bless you in your search into Scriptures! 

Awwww, I'm sure we could have some fun, Tim! 'Cause I'm not looking for a scholar, just someone to share idea's with.

What if I asked you real nice like to share with me what you your thoughts are on Genesis 1-3?

For example I would imagine you've asked yourself questions like these:

Why two trees??

And why create the Tree of Life at all if Elohim already knew, before He created them, that He was going to have to banish them from eating it?

Why doesn't His foreknowledge of their turning make The Tree of Life a superfulous creation, at best and a deception at worst?

And why does The Tree of life return in The New Heaven and The New Earth (The New Universe) where all things are reconciled and restored to Jehovah?

Did The Adam have sex before the turning?

If not, then why not?

If so, then why didn't Ishsha get pregnant before the expulsion?

And how long were they in the Garden?? Thirty minutes as Saint Augustine declared? Or longer?

Why did Elohim have do things this way, i.e. create a uniquely named tree whose fruit He had to forbid them from eating?

Was something else supposed to happen, for them being 'set up', that didn't happen?

Why did the serpent's temptation work?

Was the serpent telling the truth in response to Ishsha's answer to his question, or lying?

Why does Paul insist Eve was the one responsible for the turning?

And what did Paul mean in that weird verse he wrote to Timothy about a woman being 'saved in childbirth'?

Why did Elohim have to create Ishsha by taking a 'rib' from Ish?

And why didn't Elohim have to breathe His Breath into her?

So, Tim, are you even a bit tempted now to tell me what you've secretly and quietly concluded about Genesis 1-3?

'Cause I know you and every other human who has read The Words, has asked these questions, or one's like it And isn't it a truth that everyone's answers are as different as we are?

Which leads me to ask: Do you think it's even possible for us to know the truthful answers to these questions?
I can ask them, which means I'm sentient, like you, but, is there, in truth, an understanding that makes sense even as it answers all the questions I can ask, without contradiction?

If so, then shouldn't we be trying to understand, till we do?

And if not, then why did Elohim go through the trouble of seeing to it that we have this account of the begining of the things we know?

Be good, Tim!

It's what you were created to be!

Dennis!

Hey Dennis,

I actually do enjoy the Concordant Literal Version as well. I tend to trust the CLV, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (I've got this one on my iPod Touch   ), and Young's Literal Translation the most, for accuracy. Rotherham's Emphasized uses age-lasting/age-abiding rather than eternal, and so does Young's Literal (which is why I like that one too). Rotherham's also correctly translates Matthews 25:46 as "age-lasting correction" as opposed to "eternal punishment". Over all, these three tend to be, in general, much more accurate than other translations.  

As for your questions, I would enjoy looking into answering some of them. I'd also need to read Genesis 1-3. I haven't read that all the way through in quite a while. However, I'm not sure how soon I'll be getting back to ya, as I can be kind of lazy, and more importantly I'm leaving for my vacation today and may not have internet access (*sniffle*).

Love be with ya! 

[Eleutheros]

If you like; I can share with you the name of a teacher that the Lord has brought to my life.

As you wish, I'll receive it. But, I'd prefer your own thoughts. Unless, of course, all they are is what your teacher has told you to think, in which case your teacher would do fine!

Why don't you have him read my post and reply, if you don't want to?
 

I stumble when I speak of my own accord.

So did Moses, don'tcha, know? Besides, you'll be typing, not speaking. And wouldn't you know that I have a stammer in my own speech that can break concrete? 

Also, I did not name myself.
Beloved servant is the English translation of my actual name.

Now that is cool! I mean really cool! Thanks for sharing that!

My full name, from the Greek and Latin, means that I am the god of both drinking and revelrey, as well as war.

*sigh*

Oh, well, I gotta new name coming. Maybe it will be Eleutheros. At least I wasn't named Nabal, eh?

Be good!

Dennis!

[Eleutheros]

Hey Dennis,

I actually do enjoy the Concordant Literal Version as well. I tend to trust the CLV, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (I've got this one on my iPod Touch   ), and Young's Literal Translation the most, for accuracy. Rotherham's Emphasized uses age-lasting/age-abiding rather than eternal, and so does Young's Literal (which is why I like that one too). Rotherham's also correctly translates Matthews 25:46 as "age-lasting correction" as opposed to "eternal punishment". Over all, these three tend to be, in general, much more accurate than other translations.  

I'm familiar with Young's. It's a bit stilted, but as you said He did accurately translate 'aion'.

Rotherham's, eh? I will look into this one as I've never heard of it till now. Thanks for sharing!

As for your questions, I would enjoy looking into answering some of them. I'd also need to read Genesis 1-3. I haven't read that all the way through in quite a while. However, I'm not sure how soon I'll be getting back to ya, as I can be kind of lazy, and more importantly I'm leaving for my vacation today and may not have internet access (*sniffle*).

Love be with ya! 

Well, you just have a really great vactaion! I know I just did!

Here's an idea: Why don't you print out the questions and discuss them with your traveling companion (are you married?), especially if you are driving. You'd likely learn a thing or two in the process! As you wish!

God speed you into a good time!

Dennis!

[Beloved Servant]

Yes, the Lord provided Aaron but Moses paid a price for it.

Here is a link: www.kingdombiblestudies.org

[Eleutheros]

Yes, the Lord provided Aaron but Moses paid a price for it.

Here is a link: www.kingdombiblestudies.org

Hey!

Thank you for the link. I went to it and got only the home page. Was there a specific article of his that you wanted me to read? He's got a lot of them, you know.
I'd be glad to read the one you had in mind if you can let me know which one it is!
 
Of course I know the story of how Moses argued with Jehovah (imagine that!) till, exasperated (imagine that!), Jehovah named Aaron to be Moses' mouth.

But how are you saying that Moses' paying for having Aaron as his spokesman applies to you? I'm a bit confused. What am I missing?

If you are so inclined, could you help me to understand?

And continue to be good, my friend.

Dennis!

[Beloved Servant]

"Echoes of Eden," as the title suggests, speaks much about Genesis.

[Doc]

Hi Dennis. Over on the evangelical universalist site, there is one who has stated that there is some internal evidence that suggests that Genesis 1-3 are not literal, which I find very interesting.

[Tim B]

Hi Dennis. Over on the evangelical universalist site, there is one who has stated that there is some internal evidence that suggests that Genesis 1-3 are not literal, which I find very interesting.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind if Genesis wasn't to be taken literally. It might in fact, better harmonize it with possible scientific discoveries. Do you have a link to the thread, Doc?

[WhiteWings]

Hi Dennis. Over on the evangelical universalist site, there is one who has stated that there is some internal evidence that suggests that Genesis 1-3 are not literal, which I find very interesting.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind if Genesis wasn't to be taken literally. It might in fact, better harmonize it with possible scientific discoveries. Do you have a link to the thread, Doc?

What is literal?
Literal the way it's translated or the way the ancient texts describe things?
IMO Genesis' "days" could very well be the same type of translation error as aionos. But in reverse. And that's just one thing...

[Eleutheros]

Hi Dennis. Over on the evangelical universalist site, there is one who has stated that there is some internal evidence that suggests that Genesis 1-3 are not literal, which I find very interesting.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind if Genesis wasn't to be taken literally. It might in fact, better harmonize it with possible scientific discoveries. Do you have a link to the thread, Doc?

To all:
A good while back, after hearing the evidence on both sides as to whether Genesis should or shouldn't be taken literally, I realized that it will always boil down to a choice made by the individual as to which way they want to interpret it.

I will be honset enough, then, to admit that after weighing the arguments for and against, I want to believe that Genesis is an account of real time events that really took place involving real flesh and blood human beings.
And the primary reason, among many, that I want to believe that Genesis is an accurate and historical account of the real-time creation of the world is because Jesus, Himself, quoted from it, often, as if it were.

Paul once said this to Timothy:"...For of these are those who are slipping into homes and are leading into captivity little women, heaped with sins, being led by various lusts and gratifications, always learning and yet not at any time able to come into a realization of the truth.

And so I ask how does anyone know when, through their learning, they have arrived at a realization of the truth.

My answer is because at some point along the way I recognized that I have to make a choice and move on with it, building on that choice, until I am presented with good cause to go back and reexamine it.

(As well as being rid of the ulterior motives generated by the guilt of sin that lead me to want to choose a way of thinking that I know is wrong because of my need to justify a guilty conscience. But that's another thought, not applicable here.)

And that answer comes from realizing the truth, even as I wrote it above to Beloved Servant, that, in truth, there are right and wrong ways of thinking, just as the Proverbs divide humans into two types, the wise and the foolish, based on the way they think.

I have found then that the way of thinking that begins with believing that Genesis is allegorical or metaphorical or anything but literal leads me to a logical dead end, leaving more questions behind than it answered.

For one of the ways you know you're aquiring truth is that difficult questions, of a sudden, have answers.

And for that being said, I recognize that, in choosing to believe that Genesis should be read literaly and because of Jehovah's foreknowledge, from which we conclude that He must have known that The Adam was going to turn before He created them, there are many very difficult questions to answer, even as I have asked a few of them above.

And so I conclude that, for many, the way of thinking that follows wanting to choose to believe that Genesis should not be taken literally, stems from a desire to find a way to answer those hard questions that the Genesis narrative poses for our conclusion that Jehovah knew The Adam was going to turn before He created them.

And of course there is the fact that as soon as we as humans want to believe something we then search for the facts we need to back up what we've already concluded.

And so, we argue.

However it is a trap that is avoidable, if you are aware of your own thoughts enough that you can recognize why you want to believe something is true. And then be able to examine that motive and discern whether it is an honest one or an ulterior one.

Be good!

Dennis!

[Doc]

Hi Dennis. Over on the evangelical universalist site, there is one who has stated that there is some internal evidence that suggests that Genesis 1-3 are not literal, which I find very interesting.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind if Genesis wasn't to be taken literally. It might in fact, better harmonize it with possible scientific discoveries. Do you have a link to the thread, Doc?

I'll see if I can find it. He doesn't really go into detail in the thread itself, but I think he posts a link to something he's written that has some relationship to what he was talking about. I'll see if I can find it, and I'll post it here if I can find it.


Here's the link to the thread. It's James Goetz's post on the first page. You might need to register to view the page, I don't know.

http://www.evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=424&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=Genesis

Here's the link to the original article he wrote that he was referencing in the thread:

http://theoperspectives.blogspot.com/2007/09/theistic-evolution-and-christian.html

[Eleutheros]

Thanks Doc for the links!

I skimmed through them, he is quite thorough and quite verbose, but he isn't saying anything new- even as his extensive bibliography at the end of the article shows.

He has chosen to believe that:

"...the Bible is to be taken figuratively specifically with respect to the creation of Adam and Eve."

Which means that he likely takes most everything else in The Words 'literally' because 'literally' is the antonym of 'figuratively'.

And so I would ask why does he want to do this?

Not because I'm necessarily interested in his answer, but to illustrate that because he has, in his thinking, chosen to isolate the creation account of The Adam from the rest of The Words, he likely has an ulterior motive.

That is not a bad thing, necessarily, if he can own-up to why he wants to believe this and if he is in tune enough with his own thoughts to grasp how important it is for humans to be able to understand why we want to believe what we do.

For I have found that this kind of honesty will take a human far in grasping truth.

He does seem to believe that The Words are inspired by Jehovah. However, his isolating out the creation account to be interpreted differently from the rest of what Moses compiled is the same as saying that Jehovah must have meant for the human who wrote the creation account to write it figuratively.
And from that I would have to ask why would Jehovah want/need to do this given that the very straightforward language of the account parallels the rest of the literal history in Genesis?

Besides, as I said, Jesus refrenced Genesis, all of it, as if were an accurate historical account of real time-events involving real time humans.

And that is proof enough for me to choose to believe that all of Genesis should be taken literally, despite the serious problems caused in our thinking for the conclusion that Jehovah knew The Adam was going to turn before He created them.

And it's likely, given the history I am familiar with, that the speculative answers he would give, in support of his conclusion and in answer to my question, would only lead to more arguments, instead of correct conclusions.

So, Doc, I ask you, "Is there an understanding of Genesis that answers more questions than it raises? An understanding that is simple and doesn't require pages and pages of words to explain?"

What do you think?

Be good!

Dennis!

P.S. I've been away for the last 5 days and that is why this reply was slow in comming.

[Eleutheros]

What is literal?
Literal the way it's translated or the way the ancient texts describe things?
IMO Genesis' "days" could very well be the same type of translation error as aionos. But in reverse. And that's just one thing...

I would answer literal enough to convey the needed facts intended to lead one to a correct conclusiuon, assuming the axioms in our thinking accurately reflect reality.

And that would hold true for any translation that made an honest attempt at accuracy. Assuming that Jehovah is watching over The Words to make sure we have what we need to understand (an axiom).

For instance: yom can mean day, days, weeks, or years, or even shorter times than 'a day'. This is a fact. And therefore, a truth.

And so it is logical to assume (an axiom) that the writer knew of the limitations inherent in this word and how it's use could mislead from what he intended to say.
And so (the conclusion) to convey accurately what he intended to say he added two things to each occurence of yom; an ordinate number: one, two, three etc. And the phrase "the evening and the morning was the x day".

This is an example of using logic to arrive at a correct conclusion, based on facts and an axiom that accurately reflects reality.

Of course, all that can be truthfully said, with accuracy, of this conclusion is that the writer of this account believed that The Heavens and The Earth were created in six literal days because of how he/she modifed yom

Which means it's up to you, White Wings, to decide if you want to beleieve the same, right along with the writer! For there are many, many other logical conclusions out there to pick and choose from, any of which can be used to support what you want to believe.

And so I say be good!

it's what you were created to be!

Dennis!

[Doc]

Thanks Doc for the links!

I skimmed through them, he is quite thorough and quite verbose, but he isn't saying anything new- even as his extensive bibliography at the end of the article shows.

He has chosen to believe that:

"...the Bible is to be taken figuratively specifically with respect to the creation of Adam and Eve."

Which means that he likely takes most everything else in The Words 'literally' because 'literally' is the antonym of 'figuratively'.

And so I would ask why does he want to do this?

Not because I'm necessarily interested in his answer, but to illustrate that because he has, in his thinking, chosen to isolate the creation account of The Adam from the rest of The Words, he likely has an ulterior motive.

That is not a bad thing, necessarily, if he can own-up to why he wants to believe this and if he is in tune enough with his own thoughts to grasp how important it is for humans to be able to understand why we want to believe what we do.

For I have found that this kind of honesty will take a human far in grasping truth.

He does seem to believe that The Words are inspired by Jehovah. However, his isolating out the creation account to be interpreted differently from the rest of what Moses compiled is the same as saying that Jehovah must have meant for the human who wrote the creation account to write it figuratively.
And from that I would have to ask why would Jehovah want/need to do this given that the very straightforward language of the account parallels the rest of the literal history in Genesis?

Besides, as I said, Jesus refrenced Genesis, all of it, as if were an accurate historical account of real time-events involving real time humans.

And that is proof enough for me to choose to believe that all of Genesis should be taken literally, despite the serious problems caused in our thinking for the conclusion that Jehovah knew The Adam was going to turn before He created them.

And it's likely, given the history I am familiar with, that the speculative answers he would give, in support of his conclusion and in answer to my question, would only lead to more arguments, instead of correct conclusions.

So, Doc, I ask you, "Is there an understanding of Genesis that answers more questions than it raises? An understanding that is simple and doesn't require pages and pages of words to explain?"

What do you think?

Be good!

Dennis!

P.S. I've been away for the last 5 days and that is why this reply was slow in comming.

I don't really know the answer to your question. I would bet though that James G. would say that a non-literal interpretation does answer more questions than it raises, because as I believe he points out, there are significant problems with a literal interpretation. My guess is that this is his motive for believing what he does.
 
I do think that we tend to oversimplify some portions of the scripture rather than the opposite. I would also say that any explanation of scripture that goes against the mainstream view is necessarily going to require pages of explanation.

[Eleutheros]

I don't really know the answer to your question.

Hey Doc!,

Sorry for the delay in responding. Been busy! I hope that doesn't take the edge off our converstaion, so far.

Well, for me to answer my own question with, "Yes, there is an understanding of Genesis that is simple and elegant", would be for me to be implying that I have an answer that meets the criteria I set forth in my question.

And I do. And it is different, as I said before and as near as I've been able to determine. That is, I've not found anyone else, yet, who's started their understanding of Genesis with the *ahem* 'foundational'  axiom I begin with, anyway.

I would bet though that James G. would say that a non-literal interpretation does answer more questions than it raises, because as I believe he points out, there are significant problems with a literal interpretation. My guess is that this is his motive for believing what he does.

I would agree with your assessment. But, will then ask, which questions is he trying to answer by choosing to believe that the Creation account was meant to be taken figuratively?

The hard questions raised by the Augustinian/Calvinist conclusion that Elohim must know that The Adam was going to turn before He created them?

I do think that we tend to oversimplify some portions of the scripture rather than the opposite. I would also say that any explanation of scripture that goes against the mainstream view is necessarily going to require pages of explanation.

A logical conclusion. My reply to that would be to quote Occam's Razor, an axiom used in the scientific method to differentiate competing hypothesis: Simply stated it is:

"When you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

Of course, theology has always been strong on using (or abusing) logic and short on proof (exactly like the various cosmologies that are created to support evolution), but, still, I believe the Razor holds true, even with theology, so that the fewer assumptions (axioms) needed to support a conclusion, the closer to the truth the conclusions are.

Simplicity is elegance and to be elegant is to be beautiful. So, is there in truth no beauty?

There have been over 125 'reads' of this thread and a few polite replies. So, I perceive that there may yet be some interest in what I've typed, so far.

Lets see what happens now.

First off: As promised, logic's 'dirty little secret':

I have found that truth is split into two varieties or kinds.

First, there are facts, which are easily understood and verifiable statements of truth.

"The sky is blue."
"I love my wife."
"My van needs an oil change."
"My cats are hungry."
"That word is spelled wrong."
"Tony Stewart is the 2005 Nextel Cup Champion."
"Combining Sodium (Na) a metal, with water (H2O) a covalently bonded compound, will cause a violent reaction, generating heat and motion till either the sodium or the water are completely consumed in the transformation process."

And there are axioms.

I like this definition of an axiom:

An axiom is a formal assumption, also called a postulate, which we propose to assume is always valid.
While we are free to formulate axioms anyway we please, it is clearly desirable that any axioms we adopt lead to useful consequences.

A set of axioms must not lead to contradictory conclusions.

The words property, law and principle are sometimes used to denote an axiom and certain of their consequences.

That came from my old Algebra text book.

However, can you see how that definiton applies in all areas of expertise and experience where human beings exist together?

In Law they are called Natural Law.
In relationships they are called Principals.
In other branches of science they are called Properties.

They are self-evident truths that usually can't be proven, except by experience, and are generally accepted as true because they simply make sense to all humans everywhere.

Here are a few well known axioms:

a=a
Don't murder.
a+b+c = (a+b)+c
Don't take what doesn't belong to you
a(b+c)= ab+ac
Don't lie
The shortest distant between two points is a straight line
Don't have sex with anyone you're not married to.
If a=b and b=c then a=c.
Don't desire what you can't have.

Also, many proverbs and sayings are axiomatic because they reflect the truth of our experiences in a succinct, often whimsical, but sometimes ruthless, way.

Now, the truth is that truth works hand in hand with logic to provide conclusions with useful consequences.

But, the 'dirty little secret' is that logic works independently of the truth in the statements.

That is, you will always arrive at a logical conclusion!

So, it follows, logically, that if the statements are true then the conclusion will also be true. But, if any of the statements are false, either axiomatically or factually, then the conclusion will also be false.

But the kicker is there will always be a conclusion!

And that is why we argue, fuss and fight over our theologies! Because the logic of each and every theology (including mine) always has assumptions. And those assumptions are as different as there are humans who want to beleive what they want to believe.

And that is because, all to often, we search until we find the axioms that we can use to give us the conclusions we want. And axioms can always be 'found' because we can make them up as we wish, 'proving' them later.

That is why it has been said of logic, facetiously, that it is a way of arriving at an incorrect conclusion with certianty!

And why I say, "Don't believe everything you think."

These are (whimsical) sayings and are, therefore, axioms.

OK. That's enough for now.

I don't want to go any further with my typing till I read an engaging reply from anyone who is curious about what I am blathering on about.

And the reason is because if there is no real interest by anyone on Tentmaker in what I am typing here, then I'd rather move on.

For that is why I included, in my original post, a summation of the role the KJV translators played in establishing the theology of Saint Augustine and John Calvin in the English speaking mind; a theology whose conclusions most of you have rejected, at leat in part.
I say, in part, because I perceive that many of you still hold as truth several axioms that are an integral and necessary part of the theology of that misanthropic saint, Augustine and his sychophant, John Calvin.

In other words, I wrote my summation to show my solidarity, at least in part, with what you are wanting to accomplish here on Tentmaker and so demonstrate that I am not a threat. At least not yet, even as your perception of me will be what it will be.

And I choose Tentmaker to present these ideas of mine for debate because most all of you (even if you weren't aware of it) have experience in identifying inaccurate axioms and formulating the accurate axioms that lead you to the truthful and therefore correct conclusion that Jesus' accomplisment of the forgivness of sins was to reconcile all things to the Father, including every human being who has lived, is living and will live, against the tortured (and torturing) conclusions of Saint Augustine, as reflected in the logical and systematic theology designed by John Calvin to support Augustine's conclusions. A theology that heavily biased the KJV interpretors with the result that they made The Words say what they wanted them to say.

So, if there is no one on Tentmaker, who's interest I've peaked enough from what I've typed, so far, to engage me further, by answering some of my questions from their own understanding and in turn, asking some questions in return, then I will feel free to move on.

But, not before I encourage you all, once more, to be good!

It is, after all, what all of you, indeed every single human being, was created to be!

Dennis!

[Doc]

I forget what we were talking about now. 
I really had just meant to throw that in there to add to the discussion; I haven't looked into it enough personally to have come to a conclusion one way or another about it.

Anyway, I have come to view the scripture as containing spiritual truths that are mainly independent of their historicity. In other words, the truths God intended to communicate through Genesis are not dependent on it being a literally understood historical account, and some of it may make more sense in the big picture, or at least correlate better with other things if we do not hold dogmatically to literal interpretations. I believe that was my only point.

[Eleutheros]

I forget what we were talking about now. 

Hey Doc!

This thread does seem to have wandered a bit! But really it hasn't.

I really had just meant to throw that in there to add to the discussion; I haven't looked into it enough personally to have come to a conclusion one way or another about it.

Well, you may not be the exact kind of curious and questioning soul I am, looking for truth by making decisions on the 'hard' things and then building on them to see where the conclusions take me. After all, you can always keep a decision unmade!

And sometimes, I've observed, non-decision (which is a decision, after all!) is necessary when the logical conclusions of making a decision are uncomfortable for leading one away from where one's thoughts want to go. Or worse, the conclusions challenge the 'truth' of a long held axiom which has become foundational to the belief system that we all build up in our thoughts for the things we do make a choice to believe.

It's quite human to do this. And another of the reasons we argue fuss and fight over our theologies.

Because for something as foundational in our thinking as the answer to the questions, "How did we get here? And "How did we come to be how we are?" we must have an answer that doesn't contradict, in it's conclusion's, every other conclusion we hold as axiomatic.

In other words, we, as humans, living in this age of multiple-choice tend to let the other conclusions we like decide, for us, how we want to perceive our origins. Either choosing one explanation from among the many, or, even choosing to combine them syncretically and thus be conciliatory and 'stop the bickering'. As well as choosing not to choose.
Rather than letting the literal truth of our origins, as laid out in Genesis, interfere with what we have otherwise concluded because we know that a literal interpretation of Genesis seriously narrows our choices from among the conclusions that we want to hold as axiomatic concerning the other things of scripture that we want to believe.

After all, no one likes to have their 'foundations' shaken.

And so there is usually a negative, but, understandable, human response to the 'shaking of our foundations'. And this phenomenon most of you here on Tentmaker witness regularly as you present and argue for the biblical truth of Universal Reconciliation to those believers who hold sincerely to the late-coming, ulterior-motivated, hell-minded theologies that have driven modern Christianity for the last 1700 years or so.

So, that being said and addressing this question to all I ask, for the purpose of reflection:

"How did you come to believe UR? What about it 'pushed you over the edge', so to speak? And did you notice, once you accepted it's truth, that it changed the way you think? Did you then find that there were several other things you used to believe, axiomatically, other conclusions you once held as truth that 'had to go'  because the logical conclusions that came from your new belief contradicted the logical conclusions of your old beliefs?

Of course you did.

And that is why I am here typing to you all because all of you here, among all of the Believers, have experienced a true paradigm shift, after your re-birth, that changed your way of thinking and thus, changed your heart (For what is the heart if it is not the sum total of our thoughts?). And that, for the better, even as you know what I just typed is the truth.

Anyway, I have come to view the scripture as containing spiritual truths that are mainly independent of their historicity. In other words, the truths God intended to communicate through Genesis are not dependent on it being a literally understood historical account, and some of it may make more sense in the big picture, or at least correlate better with other things (Wow! You just annotated my point!Ed.) if we do not hold dogmatically to literal interpretations. I believe that was my only point.

For what I've read here on Tentmaker, Doc, you have pretty well summed up the point of view of most concerning our origins. Even as I perceive that many must believe like this for their already choosing to make the conclusions of a pretristic eschatology the primary focus of their belief system, adjusting their view on origins and methods of interpretation so that the logical conclusions derived from the pretristic way of thinking can be upheld against the contradictory conclusions arrived at for the literal way of thinking about our origins.
Rather than letting the literal and therefore, limiting truth of Genesis influence their eschatology, which, eschatology, is really only a secondary theme in scripture whose accurate understanding is derived from the truth of the primary things of scripture, not vice-versa. A truth.
As well as working, I have also perceived, to syncretically combine John Calvin's Johnny-come-lately, Latinized interpretation of 'predestination' with UR. And that (surprisingly enough for me, once I started talking with other UR-minded believers), despite rejecting most every other axiom in his mis-leading logic needed to make his flawed, hell-minded theology viable!

Oh, boy! Now I've stepped in it! 

So, what do you think? 

How did what I just typed make you feel? Am I arrogant for being so bold as to challenge this way? Am I now perceived by any of you as a threat, even as the emotion of resentment may have been roused in you for what you just read and that because of what you believe?

Or might I possibly have an understanding of Genesis you've never considered before? An understanding that might even cause a good paradigm shift in your thinking, even as you have experienced this kind of shift before when the conclusions derived from the logic of UR swayed you to it's accurate way of thinking?

Be good!

It's what you were created to be!