And on the Seventh day....

[Harlequin Solit]

Why would an omnipotent being need to rest!? And why did it take six days? If he's omnipotent, then he could create it all a million times over in the blink of an eye. And even that would be him taking his time.

[Queen]

Because he wants to have a day of to go and do something great like eating ice-cream...

No, I believe it is because religious people need a good day to rest, pray and overthink the week.. ...this is not for God, but for his people, his children.....

I think you see this wrong, from an atheist perspective....... it is about what people believe and that should always be respected......

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 07:13 PM post located here
Harlequin Solit:

Why would an omnipotent being need to rest!? And why did it take six days? If he's omnipotent, then he could create it all a million times over in the blink of an eye. And even that would be him taking his time.

<yawn, stretch> Try studying the original language. The Hebrew is shabath which means to cease.

[Queen]

[Harlequin Solit]

Que? I read it in the Bible, I thought English was good enough for you guys? Anyway, you haven't answered my quesiton, just avoided it.

[Amazing Rando]

Que? I read it in the Bible, I thought English was good enough for you guys? Anyway, you haven't answered my quesiton, just avoided it.

Forgive me for saying so, but this is a very naive response. The Bible wasn't written in English, and our English translations are far from perfect. That is why it is always preferable, if one is able, to read the Bible in the original languages.

I think that what Socrates is saying is that the Hebrew word that is often translated "rest" for what God does on the 7th day more accurately means to cease, not rest.

[Harlequin Solit]

Ok, tahnks for clarifying.

That's all very well, but why did it take a week? If he's all powerful, couldn't have just created it in a micro-second? And why, if he created everything, did he have to seperate sea/sky & light/dark? Why not just create them seperate?

[Unknown Banana]

The Bible wasn't written in English, and our English translations are far from perfect

Why were the original books divinely inspired, but not their translations? Does God not consider it important that we have an unflawed copy of his word these days?

Guess I'm going off topic though.

[Amazing Rando]

Posted by Harlequin Solit on Yesterday 09:44 PM:

Ok, tahnks for clarifying.

That's all very well, but why did it take a week? If he's all powerful, couldn't have just created it in a micro-second? And why, if he created everything, did he have to seperate sea/sky & light/dark? Why not just create them seperate?

You need to remember that the God of the Bible is timeless. A thousand years on earth are like a single day in his eyes. Plus, there's the possibility that the Hebrew word for day used in Genesis 1 can mean "an indefinite period of time".

To answer your question, yes he could have made creation instantaneous. Why he didn't? can't tell you that one. My guess would be he wished to create an orderly universe so that we could discover things about it, and how it was created. That's precisely what we do with modern science.

My guess is that "seperated the light from the darkness" is a figure of speech. We know that light and darkness are not physical substances to be seperated. Darkness is just the absence of light. When light was created, darkness folowed as an obvious corollary. It's kind of like how when the Bible mentions the "four corners of the earth" it doesn't mean that the world is a square or cube, it's a figure of speech for representing all parts of the earth.

Posted by Unknown Banana on Today 11:11 AM:

Why were the original books divinely inspired, but not their translations? Does God not consider it important that we have an unflawed copy of his word these days?

Have you ever studied a foreign language? If you have, you'll realize that there is no way to take, say, a document in Spanish and translate it into English without losing any of the subtle lignuistic nuances that differentiate one language from another. It's inevitable that you'll always lose some meaning and clarity when you translate something into a different language. That's exactly what happens with the Bible. Not only are they different languges than we speak, but the particular forms of the language used in the Bible are what are known as "dead languages," like Latin. Nobody's spoken either Biblical Hebrew or common (koinne -SP?) Greek for 1500 years at least. In other words, the very nature of language prevents us from having exact translations. Even admitting the possibility of the miraculous, it simply isn't possible.

[chsalvia]

To help demonstrate lingual nuances and the problems with translation, one not need look any further than the opening title page of Theology Web!

It reads "We debate theology...seriously."

Now...suppose, two thousand years from now, in another culture, in a different environment, this phrase was deciphered and translated by some future linguist.

We 21st century English readers can infer from this phrase that there is a slight element of humor in it. "We debate theology...seriously." But that element of humor would be completely lost to a future translator. He would simply take it to mean "We earnestly and genuinely debate theology." The element of humor that comes out in the word "seriously", which is a product of our language and pop-culture, would be impossible to translate into a future language.

In fact, it might even be lost if we translated it into a similar modern day language. For example, in Spanish: "Debatimos la teología...en serio." I'm not quite sure if the element of humor would be carried over in this translation.

Imagine then, all that is lost when the Hebrew of the OT is translated - especially in the more poetic sections such as the prophecy literature. English-speakers can only sometimes get a glimpse into the puns or wordplays of the original Hebrew by reading footnotes or commentary.

[Robert's s/n]

"We debate theology...seriously." But that element of humor would be completely lost to a future translator.

And apparently to a contemporary participant as well. Where's the humor again?

[Amazing Rando]

I do not know very much about Biblical Hebrew other than what I've learned from the sidebar columns of my Bible and what I learned in an "Intro to the Bible" course at my secular university.

One thing I did find really facinating is the fact that some of the Psalms are accrostics, at least I think that's how you spell it. That means that each line of the psalm starts with a different letter of the Hebrew alphabet, in alphabetical order. It would be equivalent to writing a poem in English where the first line starts with A, the second with B, the third with C, and so on. This is one of those little nuances of Hebrew poetry that makes it so unique and beautiful, that we could never tell simply by reading the psalm in English. I hope to someday learn either biblical Greek or Hebrew and read the Bible in the original, for a fuller understanding of all it says. But alas, tht won't be for a few years yet. Those who already posess this skill are very fortunate indeed.

[Unknown Banana]

Thanks for the responses. I do understand there are many difficulties involved in translating ancient texts, especially books like the bible. I have kinda studied foreign languages - Afrikaans and French, though not very thoroughly There are certainly some things in those languages that you simply cannot express properly in english.

I guess I'm just pushing some version of the old argument: "why don't all christians interpret the bible the same way?". The bible itself says that we should not change it in any way, yet this does seems like an impossible task with possible interpretation errors.

(Deuteronomy 4:2) Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

You need to remember that the God of the Bible is timeless. A thousand years on earth are like a single day in his eyes. Plus, there's the possibility that the Hebrew word for day used in Genesis 1 can mean "an indefinite period of time".

I do prefer this interpretation. If God is up there, then he is most likely laughing at either creationist YEC'ers or OEC'ers (If indeed he does laugh). Perhaps it isn't important to God, but I just would have thought that if he actually does respond to his followers (as many believe) then he would at least set them right.

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 12:39 PM post located here
Unknown Banana:

Thanks for the responses. I do understand there are many difficulties involved in translating ancient texts, especially books like the bible. I have kinda studied foreign languages - Afrikaans and French, though not very thoroughly There are certainly some things in those languages that you simply cannot express properly in english.

I guess I'm just pushing some version of the old argument: "why don't all christians interpret the bible the same way?". The bible itself says that we should not change it in any way, yet this does seems like an impossible task with possible interpretation errors.

What the Bible means by not changing it is not adding or subtracting to any doctrine that is in it, either implicitly or explicitly. For example, proclaiming that one has had a "new revelation" from God is a sure sign that one is spouting lies. The NT explicitly warns against this (e.g. Jude, 2 Peter, as well as Christ in the gospels). That is why so many Christians are wary of groups like the Mormons or JW's because they claim to have additional inspired scripture.

Translation is not adding or subtracting to the doctrine, because we have the documents in the original languages to compare the translations to. At the same time, as when reading any translation, one must keep in mind the potential linguistic differences that exist between the original and the translation, and whenever any questions or conflicts arise, defer to the original documents or those who have read the Bible in the original languages. Does that make sense?

I do prefer this interpretation. If God is up there, then he is most likely laughing at either creationist YEC'ers or OEC'ers (If indeed he does laugh). Perhaps it isn't important to God, but I just would have thought that if he actually does respond to his followers (as many believe) then he would at least set them right.

I'm sure God does get amused at our foolishness, just as he gets angry when we sin against him and sad when we reject him. As has been pointed out in other forums, whatever side you take in the origins debate is not a salvation issue. The only thing that really matters is what you do with Christ, God's offer of mercy.

As to your question about God responding to his followers, that's where the Holy Spirit comes in. It's kind of like a substitute for Christ's physical presence that all believers share, correcting errors and bringing people on the straight and narrow again. However from time to time, everybody (Christians included) tends to allow themselves to be ruled by pride rather than by God. We often unfortunately shut out God's influence in our lives and follow our own selfish pursuits. This manifests itself in many ways, from people ignoring God's instructions to beleiving human-created lies. That accounts for some doctrinal differences. That's my understanding of it anyway.

[Unknown Banana]

Today @ 02:05 PM post located here
Amazing Rando:



What the Bible means by not changing it is not adding or subtracting to any doctrine that is in it, either implicitly or explicitly. For example, proclaiming that one has had a &quot;new revelation&quot; from God is a sure sign that one is spouting lies. The NT explicitly warns against this (e.g. Jude, 2 Peter, as well as Christ in the gospels). That is why so many Christians are wary of groups like the Mormons or JW's because they claim to have additional inspired scripture.

Translation is not adding or subtracting to the doctrine, because we have the documents in the original languages to compare the translations to. At the same time, as when reading any translation, one must keep in mind the potential linguistic differences that exist between the original and the translation, and whenever any questions or conflicts arise, defer to the original documents or those who have read the Bible in the original languages. Does that make sense?

Yep! I could argue that you might be adding misguided meanings to words (ie. rest or cease), though this isn't intentional and probably isn't an issue. I still have a problems though, in that some people (friends even) do believe the bible to be innerant, even after translation. That's their choice though, I guess.

I'm sure God does get amused at our foolishness, just as he gets angry when we sin against him and sad when we reject him. As has been pointed out in other forums, whatever side you take in the origins debate is not a salvation issue. The only thing that really matters is what you do with Christ, God's offer of mercy.

As to your question about God responding to his followers, that's where the Holy Spirit comes in. It's kind of like a substitute for Christ's physical presence that all believers share, correcting errors and bringing people on the straight and narrow again. However from time to time, everybody (Christians included) tends to allow themselves to be ruled by pride rather than by God. We often unfortunately shut out God's influence in our lives and follow our own selfish pursuits. This manifests itself in many ways, from people ignoring God's instructions to beleiving human-created lies. That accounts for some doctrinal differences. That's my understanding of it anyway.

You probably don't mean it like this, but from my atheistic perspective I get the following from that:
Either
- God communicates to followers (via the holy spirit) only when a matter of salvation is at hand;
or
- Human created lies are indistinguishable to guidance from the holy spirit in the telling;

There is of course the option of people that lie to themselves about following God, but I'm only concentrating on people that sincerely try to follow God (but still get conflicting messages).