Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Exactly..
Thanks betty boop. I understood what he said. Just because a bunch of people talk about something as an “object” of their conversation doesn’t mean there is such an object. So, it is just words unattached to anything real. In other words, shooting the breeze in common language.
Certainly I don't disagree with you on that, kosta50!
Saying you do doesn't mean you do.
Maybe he did maybe he didn't. What does that prove? Did +John the Forerunner know God is Trinity? Maybe he did maybe he didn't. Honestly, I don't care what Jewish priests did; apples and oranges.
The Apostles most of the time had no clue what Jesus was taking about. If they didn't how could they do things correctly. The evidence from Didache (1st century) shows that the earliest Church used triple immersion while the Apostles were still on earth.
Saying you do doesn't mean you do.
If you say so....
I know, that's why I mentioned it. I think of all the Protestant innovations, this one is the most radical and hardest to explain. It is an equivalent, IMHO, to desecration of baptism.
That was Adam's job, not ours. There is nothing in this verse that says we are commissioned to keep naming things. Besides, it had to do with animals an dplants, something we can use and interact with, not space-time fantasies.
To make sure we are on the same wavelength
The Hebrew text says Adam where the NIV/NAB deceivingly inserted "man." So, not just any man, but only Adam. Are you Adam? Is Hawking Adam?
Yes.
Is The Epistle of James in your canon?
So, do we agree then that "objective" conversations about things that 'exist' only in our fancy are shooting the breeze and have no claim to reality or existence of anything but our imagination?
Got a teensy problem here. It also doesn't mean there isn't. Words are signs of concepts. We know we can't know objectively what is real, only if it is objective.
Is The Epistle of James in your canon?
"My" canon? Are you always this precise? The Church has one canon and it's not a private one, as is the case apparently with some groups of gnostics and other heretics running around making their own.
get to the point.
I am glad you realize that too. So, let's not pretend then that speaking of concepts is something real. Let's keep concepts as concepts, fantasy as fantasy, and call cosmology what it is: shooting the breeze.
That is certainly not true. The Roman Church has one, possibly. The Orthodox has one, possibly. The Syriac has one, possibly. The Protestants have who knows. You have already denied the Revelation of St. John, but that is in the Roman and Protestant canon. None of this is to the point, which will go without mention since we all know what it is.
We are all sons of God, believers and non-believers but I think there is a special meaning for this use. For God to send a flood it seems to me that it would be much more than that many, if not all, didn't believe.
These are some of the reasons, in a study done by E.W. Bullinger, that I believe that these "sons of God" are angels.
It is only by the Divine specific act of creation that any created being can be called "a son of God". For that which is "born of the flesh is flesh". God is spirit, and that which is "born of the Spirit is spirit". Hence Adam is called a "son of God" in Luke 3:38. Those "in Christ" having "the new nature" which is by the direct creation of God can be, and are called "sons of God".
This is why angels are called "sons of God" in every other place where the expression is used in the OT. We have no authority or right to take the expression in Gen. 6:2,4 in any other sense. Moreover, in Gen.6:2 the Sept. renders it "angels".
He also goes on about the Nephilim, or giants, in great detail.
The reference to the nephalim is the only instance where a possible interpretation of angels procreating with humans exists.
I believe that the serpent in the garden is the first instance of that type of procreation. Satan was trying to interfere with the line to Christ. He knew it started with Adam and Eve and continued through the Adamic line (Hebrews).
In Gen.6:2, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair.... The word "men" is (Heb. ha-'adham, sing. - the man Adam). This isn't mankind, "men", but Adam. It should have been translated as: That the sons of God saw the daughters of "ADAM" that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Satan wanted that line to Christ wiped out.
Also, your understanding of prior ages is dependent upon the translation of key words. Do you believe that when the vowels were added to the Masoretic text mistakes were made?
Yes, I do. That is why I use the Companion Bible, by E.W. Bullinger. "Readers of the Companion Bible are put in possession of information denied to former generations of translators, commentators, critics, and general Bible students." Bullinger had access to notes by Ginsburg, or he himself took notes (I don't know the proper story) but because of Bullinger or Ginsburg, this Bible has scripture tested against the Massorah.
.....Ping
This is a further problem. It is pointless to speak of anything by that standard. Real is only subjective: what is spoken of is objective and objective is not a synonym for real.
Yes. The object of the game in the use of language is truthful representation of reality.
We need to specify which of the senses of truth is being used here. I assume it is logical truth. We can have no representation of reality, but we do have representations of sensations, which we determine to be objects. We can have no knowledge of reality except subjective.
Gen.19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
2.And he said, "Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways."......
3.And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
They aren't bodiless Kosta.
......Ping
Me-me-me solipsism.
Real is only subjective: what is spoken of is objective and objective is not a synonym for real
Now you are making up the meanings of the words as well? I suppose with your sentence above, that's fine. But real diectionaries (American heritage) defines "objective" as, first and foremost:
1. Of or having to do with a material object. 2. Having actual existence or reality.
Hint: the derivative root of objective is an object, ob+ject=something you can throw.
Real is only subjective: what is spoken of is objective
subjective=existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective) [dictonary definition, Unobridged].
You are contradicting yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.