[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Religion Title: The KJV in Order A K A Stone, I told you I would stop posting until I could fully answer you, and I meant it. I'm not going to recriminate. You said plenty that made my blood boil, but I've decided to take it as sincere concern for what I've said, as opposed to simply trying to bait me. You've said many times that I don't provide Scripture. I have, but to the extent that I have not provided enough. this e-mail will remedy that. I've agreed to use the KJV, and just that. No Hebrew, no Greek, no outside interpretive Scripture translations. The KJV has no footnotes, sp there will be no wrangling between us over the authority of footnotes that are not there. It's just the text, and you've said you accept this text as authoritative. I know that the original KJV contained the Apocrypha also, but I'm not going to use the Apocrypha (even though it's part of the full KJV), because that will simply be another opportunity for a pointless fight. God's law is all in the Protestant canon, so I'll leave that issue be also. So here we are with the KJV text. I'm going to go through it starting with Genesis 1, and note each place where there is something of particular interest that bears, directly or indirectly, on our discussion of economics and law. I have to do this because of your very aggressive and hostile tone. You've said that I don't quote Scripture, but I did, at length, so I can see that every single point I make has to be specifically backed by a citation right in the text. Now, I've noticed that you don't write that way at all, and neither does anybody else. But because the things that I say do not fit your tradition, you hold me to a much higher standard than you hold yourself or your allies. You can simply positively assert your tradition as though it is a fact - without citing a word of Scripture - as though the fact that it's your tradition ESTABLISHES it as scripture. But if I do not point cite each and every point, I'm a false prophet, twister of scripture, doing Satan's work, and every other damned thing. Fine then, I shall meet you all the way, and provide a point cite to every single point I make. But you won't let it go at that either. Once you have Scripture that demonstrates the point, you'll reject my argument anyway, claiming that I am "twisting Scripture" or "taking it out of context". The only way I can avoid THAT charge is to present ALL of Scripture - every single thing that is important to the topic, in order from the beginning to the end of Scripture, so that nothing is left out. This is the only way to defeat the charge of "taking it out of context" - to provide the FULL context. I did something close to that before, and you never even acknowledged it. I think that what I am doing is a fool's errand. YOU are not going to accept what the Scripture says, because the full weight of Scripture, fully deployed, is contrary to your tradition. So what you will do is what you have already done: you will ignore what I've written, and then say that I'm not reading something right, and that I've presented things out of context. I know that I cannot win from the beginning of this exercise. I know that you will not be persuaded by Scripture itself. I'm going to go through the full dress battle anyway, line by line, because it deserves to be said, and if you will not be persuaded, others will. From my perspective, once God's laws and examples have been laid end-to-end, the principles are very clear and there isn't much left to debate, because God is clear. So, that's what I am going to do, the source I'm going to use, how I'm going to use it, why I am doing it just this way - all the while acknowledging that in the end I do not believe I can win in your court, because I think you have prejudged the case. But maybe seeing God's word laid out for you end to end will break open the prison door of your heart. "And so we sail, in the confident expectation of a miracle." - the Duke of Medina Sidonia Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning..." Note that the word is "in", and not "AT". "At the beginning..." would mean a single point of time. "At 10 o'clock", or "At the opening bell", but "In the beginning..." refers to an indeterminate span of time. If you said "At the start of the first inning" of a baseball game, we would think of the first pitch, but if you said "In the first inning", we would recognize that the subject event occurred during a span of at bats by both sides. This is important, because some traditions assert that the Bible says that God created everything from nothing in an instant, that it's right there in the first sentence. Actually, that is NOT there in the first sentence. The text does not speak of a point of time - AT the beginning - AT the start - but of a span of time - IN the beginning - IN the first inning. Also, the text does not say that God created the whole universe from nothing. That's a traditional addition to the text. The text itself says that God created "the Heaven" and "the Earth". We discover in Genesis 1:8 that "the Heaven" is specifically the firmament that God made "in the midst of the waters", in other words the sky. And in 1:10, that :the Earth" specifically means "the dry land", and NOT "the planet". Does it matter? Yes it does. It matters because in the Creationist/Evolutionist debates, many creationists go too far and assert that the Scriptures say things that they do not say. What they say, using the definitions in the text, is that during the beginning God made the sky and the dry land. Then Genesis goes on after that to describe the filling up of the dry land with things, and the waters with sea creatures. And so we come to the first commandment, given to the lifeless darkness: "Let there be light!" Genesis 1:3. In 1:5 Genesis will define "Light" as "Day", and darkness as "Night". And that is where we will stop for tonight. Genesis 1:1 does not support the excessively detailed claims that some make. It is a more general summary. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 10.
#8. To: Vicomte13 (#0)
In the beinning is translated from the Hebrew word tyvar re'shiyth, pronounced ray-sheeth' for other instances of this Hebrew word, search for 07225 in KJV It means, the first, in place, time, order or rank (specifically, a firstfruit):--beginning, chief(-est), first(-fruits, part, time), principal thing. So, as you can see, in the beginning, means in the beginning, the first thing.
It is the Hebrew BRASYT. The Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 is fascinating. Read in the original hieroglyphs, it speaks frankly of the division of the godhead into two (Father and Son) before the beginning of the story, with an arm pointing to the cross. Then the next word-sentence, BRA, speaks of how the Gods - the plural Elohiym - Father and Son - make the world together - with the Holy Spirit - the Ruach Elohiym hovering over the dark chaos - then the Gods breathe out order onto the chaos, as light, which is energy. Energy overcomes the entropy. It's there in the hieroglyphic sentences formed by each word. But it's not there in the KJV English, and here we're doing KJV Only. You've studied the Hebrew. So have I. The things we read obviously gave us a different view. I've studied the pictographic hieroglyphs also, and read the words as sentences of words. Nobody else does that, so I haven't "gotten that" from elsewhere. But Stone isn't going to accept our jabbering about Hebrew from what we learned from others. He's certainly not going to accept my own independent work on the hieroglyphs, because nobody can verify that - there's no authority to cross-reference. If we go down that road, we will end up in endless bickering. The purpose of THIS thread is to go through the KJV alone, in order, quickly, to point out what it says on key issues that pertain to the various disputes that Stone and I have had about law, economics and social order. He and I have never clashed on creation, but creation is the beginning of the whole thing, so I included it and direct cites to show my approach: present the cite, in context, and then point out some things that some Christians and anti-Christians say that are not actually in the text. By doing this, I am showing my bona-fides. I have bound myself to write from the text as it is, and I do. There is no stretch in my words describing creation, because I'm just quoting the actual TEXT, what it SAYS. I point out the tension that people introduce by ADDING concepts to the text, or taking some away. Now, as it happens, creation is not a subject in tension between me and Stone, so he can see that I am an honest broker in using Scripture. I'm not adding stuff, or subtracting stuff - I stick to what it SAYS. I'm not shy about saying what those words MEAN (example: "light" = "day"), but this should not be controversial because GOD HIMSELF said just that, right at Genesis 1:5. I agree with you that the KJV says "In the beginning". In English, "in" is "in", not "at". At the beginning is not the same thing as in the beginning. At the start of the first inning is a point of time. In the first inning is a span of time. "In the beginning" is a span of time, not a point of time. If the Scripture said "At the beginning", it would be a point of time. But it does not say "At", it says "In", and "In the beginning" is not a point but a line segment of time. This shouldn't matter, but if it does, then the KJV clearly speaks of a span of time "in the beginning" and not a single moment of time "at the beginning". "In January" is not the same thing as "At noon at the start of January". Noon on January first is the only point in time referred to in the second. But 3 PM on January 23rd is still "in January". The sixth day of creation is still "in the beginning". "The beginning" doesn't end until God rests on the seventh day.
There are no replies to Comment # 10. End Trace Mode for Comment # 10.
Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest |
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|