Philologos

My wife reads CSB. It reads fine, but with translator’s limited knowledge of word meanings, and sentence structures, the translation is a bit on the ‘casual’ side. I wouldn’t depend on it for accurate meanings of words/study, but it is fine for general understanding.

What is the bottom line implication here? Can anyone put this all in a “nutshell” and explain what this all means in a reasonably clear statement?

I never disagreed with that, but you’ve been so hyper-focused on it, you didn’t understand my initial question, which was why be so hyper-focused on it if you can’t explain why. Brother, I do know why. I was trying to get you to see that there was a reason for it. If you don’t want to go beyond that, I’m good. I'm off this topic. 🙊

What translation are you using? The word ‘wing’ is not describing a temple location, but the setting up of the abomination

“The land and all therein is His.” It’s the same meaning as earth, but not ‘planet.’ Sometimes adama is translated as “earth.” What do we make of that? In English, adama means planet also? I’m fine with people disagreeing with me- had a pastor recently mock me (& God) because he was teaching that “Mystery” is an actual city that he can travel to that is the source city of all sexual deviancy. I called him on it- he obviously disagreed with me. Another, nationally known pastor, adamantly spoke these words, “God is unsafe!” I called him on it- think he agreed? How do we know eretz means “Planet Earth” and not “the land, territory, country?” It can be translated many different ways without considering its intended use… If we make no assumptions about ‘eretz,’ and consider the verb tense issue that has taken up way too much of this thread, we would actually accept the verb tense and have a reasonable and accurate understanding of what happened when, how, etc. It helps to ask God to provide some level of understanding… if you’re of the belief that God will give you wisdom when you want it/need it. But, no worries. I tried. As long as we’re each set on our own preferred translations, there’s nothing more I can share on this topic.

In most translations, eretz is translated “land” twice+ as often as “earth.” (I used KJV data since so many are fond of that translation and use it as a source translation.) My concern is that we read the bias English translation of that word in a variety of ways and are unaware that we hang a whole mess of doctrine on an incorrect understanding of its meaning. We give meaning to it based on our theology. We read “eretz” as meaning the planet… it is never used in scripture with that in mind. I believe God made this planet, but scripture isn’t about the planet, it’s about the plot of land that God claimed for Himself to dwell among a chosen portion of His creation, a mere 1% of the earth’s surface. When we read “earth” and think scripture is referring to the planet, we generalize what was written about something very specific. Most understand scripture as saying, “God created the planet and the universe…” It’s really focused on 1400x1400 mile plot of land and the atmosphere above it. This is revealed throughout scripture, including in descriptions of Mew Jerusalem, as well as OT prophets.

What does the word ‘eres mean in this verse? There are seven different translations in descending order of frequency: land, earth, country, ground, world, way, common, field, nations, wilderness. Our definition of ‘earth’ as “planet” has only been used since the 15th century. These manuscripts used that word before anyone ever referred to the whole planet as “earth.” These ‘translations’ are all the same word, not much to distinguish them from one another… which one is correct? All? Any of them? Before we continue with hayah, I’d like to verify the intended meaning of ‘eres in each of these, since the focus is on the ‘eres and its status upon the arrival of the Spirit of God.

1. It started with Emperor Constantine- when he legalized Christianity, he gave them buildings modeled after pagan temples. The practices of the pagan temples and secular entertainment entered these now-public gatherings in public buildings. (95+% were unconverted in the public meetings) Most of the pagans of that time became followers of the Bible as spoken literature, a common form of entertainment, while others saw it as a new addition to their many gods. The buildings became identified by the same moniker as the entertainment venues, ‘Circe.’ It’s the same word from which we get “circus” and “church.” It was a cultural thing to be entertained by public speaking. 2. People don’t change.

It’s the same word God used when Moses asked what name to tell the people. As well, you’ll find that word is also used to request and evaluate light in the following verse… “‘Amar Elohim, haya ‘or, haya ‘or.” (God said, ‘become light, and became light’) This occurs a lot in both OT & NT. °Three completely different Greek words all translated “love.” °At least three different Greek words representing death translated “hell.” °”Lucifer” is a mistranslation in Isaiah. (No such word actually exists in scripture- it’s a known error that no one wants to fix. °There are more than 600 years of genealogy that were altered and passed down into most English translations. Two different sets of older manuscripts show this. °A messianic prophecy was censored- it removed a healing that Jesus performed, and Jesus even read the original text that included it when he first proclaimed his mission. He was popular for healing the blind, so the scribes created the Masoretic text without it, in hopes people wouldn’t think it meant him. *My point is, that we can chase down every word that we don’t think is translated correctly, but until we come to an agreement with bibles publishers and pulpits, we’re just treading water in a hurricane. But my original point was that by using what you know the verb to actually say, will cause people to inquire about it. The lack of an explanation negates the importance of that word. And… it adds more to the “we don’t understand pile” of scriptural knowledge. How does knowledge of the proper verb tense, in this case, change in people’s understanding of that one verse?

My apologies, I’ve certainly misread something you’d written previously. Sorry bout that.

Actually, he was. Yes, he was born of a woman, that’s what made him a man(and separate from his father); but, as Spirit, he never ‘disconnected’ from God. He was still God when He entered Jesus- his glorified body and His spirit (as God) merged- they literally became one. The purpose for us is different- Jesus spent his life preparing to hold the seven spirits of God (see Isaiah & Revelation)… His body became a part of God so that God could become part of us.

Oh, I wasn’t concerned about your research method. I just think that by using a verb tense that has no purpose, in this particular case, but has the potential to create a focus on “what happened that God had to ‘restore’ the earth?” The only example I have is this conversation. I immediately noticed the grammar, I inquired about it, you dismissed my initial inquiry, I mentioned it a second time and you then agreed to say what was on your mind… And then I was disappointed, to be honest. When you’d used that verb tense, it caught my attention, I actually hoped you had legitimate insight to why it was written that way… as I have waited 20 years to hear what someone else has to say about it… no problem, though. Your methods of research are fine, btw. 👍🏼

It’s documented in Scripture that a particular word was not used until after Seth’s birth. It’s used everywhere through the OT, except Genesis & one other OT book… and yet same word appears in the ELS subtext- not in the readable text, same as Genesis. I’m not presenting any teaching here, only stating that what we think of as being genesis chapter one uses different grammar, has characteristics that separate it from the rest of scripture. It is very unique, and equally mysterious.

I agree that when Moses stated “God is One,” he did not use the number one, rather the word that means (basically) united as one. But Jesus said “the Father and I are one.” The snippet I pulled from your response almost directly conflicts with scripture- I’m not stating that you are wrong, I’m just wondering… if scripture says Father/son/Holy Spirit are one, why do we still speak of three separate entities? Yes, father, son, and Holy Spirit are three… but their own testimony is that they are ‘one.’ The scripture does not emphasize the teaching of a triune God, but does emphasize His oneness. I really just want to know what is it that makes us focus on proving He’s a trinity and why we have to always intentionally speak of Him as three as if it were required for us to do.

Two individuals can read the same verse and conclude they each have and know God’s point of view, yet see the complete opposite meaning, or, at least foreign from the other’s point of view. There are differing points of view, but not all are God’s. I’m not asking for God’s thought process on why He kept saying “one” and we keep saying “three.” It’s not scripture or doctrine I’m looking for, I’m not asking to be taught about the trinity- I’m asking for thought processes related to why we focus on either the individuals of the trinity and why some focus on the One even though they may believe the same doctrine.

I do; but, of course, I did the research, so I’m naturally bias. I translate scripture; in doing so, I realized something very unique about how Genesis (traditionally what is known as chapter 1:1-2:3) was written. I compared it to the three subsequent chapters and found that it differs in every comparative trait. Also, in goofing around with ELS (Equidistant Letter Sequencing) of the Hebrew text of chapter 1, I found four letters that kept repeating themselves throughout. It didn’t appear in the reading of the words, but only encoded. That word was unknown prior to the birth of Seth, (Adam was 235 yrs old), and it did not appear in that unique first chapter- except in the ELS. I figure it’s the signature of the one who wrote it.

I wasn’t questioning what you believe… merely asked how you deal with opposition to a specific situation. Thanks for joining in!

Rarely. Even Young’s Literal is translated with some bias, compromise, and error. As others have rightly said, find a version that is easy for you to understand. None are accurate, precious few are even near accurate. Even the trusted Masoretic text shows significant alterations to scripture, including censoring a prophecy about Jesus healing the blind… it exists in older manuscripts since discovered, but serves as a reminder that no version will be free from bias, error, or ignorance.

Are you saying that the perspective of 3 being one is wrong, but seeing the 1 as 3 is correct? Wouldn’t we just be arguing the semantics and not really knowing any significant difference between the two? (maybe I misunderstood what you are actually thinking, sorry)

Oh, thank you for bringing that to my attention… I didn’t receive a notification of that and another, it seems, and I didn’t scroll through everything to check.

I see. But, can each of our three natures function independent of the others as in the trinity?

Sadly, it was the serpent who said that; but then, you credited it to God… just as the serpent intended for Eve to believe. Perhaps you and I can part ways here.

You are the first who responded with the “One” perspective… why not a statement about the trinity? Honest curiosity on what thought you had when choosing to write what you wrote and not write about any aspect of the individuals… if you don’t mind…😇

Fortunately, my beliefs don’t come from what I know or can learn from someone else. Yes, for 35 years I’d amassed more doctrinal fodder than I can shake a stick at, but knowing all this, the one thing I don’t know is “why” people focus on what is not specifically focused on in scripture. Why do some say God is three persons, and on others say He is One? If He is three separate persons, how is it possible that He is One?

(I meant ‘persona’ as a person or perceived/projected description of person/s.) So, are we not addressing God as One? Your responses seem to indicate that we are to think of Him as three separate individuals… not sure, curious. My curiosity is only about why some of us seem to strongly focus on each individual as separate, and others perceive God as One, but operating in three different capacities. I just never hear how the three are one, or even one is three; I only hear about the three…