The false doctrine of "sinful nature"

En Hakkore

Active member
First time I saw you since the big crash, Jonathan.
When was this crash and how long did it last? It's been a few years since I was last here... how time flies! It's good to see a number of familiar names and old acquaintances, yourself among them.

They call you names and say that you are "carnal" because you are using the knowledge you have from your PhD in Biblical Hebrew.
The PhD is actually on hold for now... aside from the general instability of the planet, my mom had a stroke three years ago and a significant portion of my time is devoted to caring for her. I did manage to complete the MA thesis and successfully defend it last year, several years behind schedule. I got onto faculty in a research capacity, which basically means the university funds my research and writing projects. My first essay came out earlier this year and I have three more at various stages of the copyediting process (all peer-reviewed naturally). I'm also working on a book that I was ambitiously hoping to get out next year, but the pandemic thwarted that plan! It's all good, however, since I can now take my time with it and when things settle down around the globe (assuming they will) I'll revisit the PhD.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

John t

Active member
Slyzr said:
and you continue to say Isiah was not addressing the text in question.
Isaiah is IRRELEVANT to the topic at hand.

EVERY verse ripped from its context is a pretext, without exception.

SERIOUSLY, do you know the meaning of the word, "context"?

Isaiah came 1000 to 750 AFTER Moses

Possible double post
 

Cynthia

Active member
This is added just for a broader view of the passage of the tree.

NETS LXX Gen2.9 the tree for knowing what is knowable of good and evil

SAAS LXX Gen2.9 the tree of learning the knowledge of good and evil
 

John t

Active member
This is added just for a broader view of the passage of the tree.

NETS LXX Gen2.9 the tree for knowing what is knowable of good and evil

SAAS LXX Gen2.9 the tree of learning the knowledge of good and evil
Thanks for your efforts, because they destroy the position of the anti-education Christadelphians.

Saint Athanasius Academy Septuagint is an LXX translation found in the Orthodox Study Bible published in English in 2008.
NETS NETS is a new translation of the Greek Jewish Scriptures, entitled A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under that Title (and abbreviated as NETS). The latter is an electronic edition

So if any one of them were sufficiently sharp they could use chronology as a counter to your evidence as well as the fact that the LXX (Septuagint) is in Greek, not Hebrew.

However when one considers the age of the LXX, originally written around the time of Alexander (C.330 BC) by seventy (hence named in Latin numbers for 70) that makes a very compelling argument for the Hebrew vav conjunction phrase טוב ורע

Also the grammar in ANY makes the "translation" of the cultists impossible I am having problems with cutting and pasting Hebrew this AM, so I am using English to explain [EH, you are gonna love this!]

עֵץ S6086 TWOT1670a GK6770329 n.m. Gn 2: 9 tree, trees, wood;—ע׳ abs. Gn 3:3 +, cstr. 3:24 +, עֵץ־ 2:16 +; sf. עֵצְיךָ Dt 28:42, etc.; pl. עֵצִים Ju 9:8 +, cstr. עֲצֵי Is 7:2 +, sf. עֵצֶיךָ Dt 29:10, עֵצֵינוּ La 5:4, etc.;—1. (c. 150 times) a. a standing tree

Brown, F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. (1977). Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (p. 781). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

That is a common masculine singular noun in the construct form.

In the Hebrew text, it is ALSO proceeded by the vav [and]

That makes the tree different than every other sort of tree BECAUSE IT IS A DEFINITE NOUN . It is not wrong to say that due to its construction, it reads "and THE tree".

Definite nouns require adjectives, and in this case one prepositional phrase suffices and is he other half of the construct form Thus we have so far, "The tree of knowledge" and it is the ONLY such tree. BTW knowledge is also a noun

There are two prepositional phrases "of good" and "of evil" that further describe that ONE particular tree It is "of good and evil" and in Hebrew, both of the are in the absolute form. So according to the construction we have a sort of "hypostatic union" of a tree with two natures, an good knowledge nature and an evil knowledge nature

You don't need to be a dendrologist to describe the sort of tree it is and its fruit but Hebrew helps (Apologies to Bob Dylan)
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
No, you are taking a well-known construction in Hebrew (at least to those of us who know the language) used to intensify verbal action and trying to extract some clever "spiritual" insight from it... there is nothing legitimate about this kind of unrestrained hermeneutic, particularly when it violates the plain sense of the narrative, which is a reference to the man's physical death should he eat fruit from the tree of knowledge.


With the exception of three ambiguous constructions in 2:20; 3:17 and 3:21, this individual is referred to throughout the garden narrative as "the man" (האדם) rather than by the proper name "Adam" (אדם). As to your question, no, the man did not "drop dead" the moment he bit into the fruit or even shortly thereafter. The Hebrew "on the day" (ביום) need not be understood so rigidly, it can function as a compound preposition "when". The garden narrative (2:4b-3:24) stands in supplemental relationship to the creation account of 1:1-2:3 and in 2:4b there is reference to "on the day" that YHWH God made earth and heaven, yet this collective process was spread out over six days according to the earlier account. Returning to the other use of "to die you will die" (מות תמות) in 1 Kgs 2:37, we can interrogate it similarly. Did Shimei "drop dead" the moment he crossed the Kidron Valley on his way out of Jerusalem? Of course not... he continues on his way, journeys all the way to Gath, retrieves his runaway slaves, returns to Jerusalem and is later summoned by Solomon and finally executed by Benaiah on the king's orders (2:39-46). When Shimei left Jerusalem, his death was certain and happened at an indeterminate point in the future. Similarly, when the man ate the fruit he was forbidden to consume, his death was certain and happened at an indeterminate point in the future.


Satan? There are four agents in the garden narrative: the deity, the man, the woman and the snake. There is no reference whatsoever to a שטן in the text, the musings of later interpreters notwithstanding.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
You ever hear of a dual fulfillment prophecy?
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
No, you are taking a well-known construction in Hebrew (at least to those of us who know the language) used to intensify verbal action and trying to extract some clever "spiritual" insight from it... there is nothing legitimate about this kind of unrestrained hermeneutic, particularly when it violates the plain sense of the narrative, which is a reference to the man's physical death should he eat fruit from the tree of knowledge.
You're trapped. Just like those who try to deny Genesis 1:2.

I have learned from men who know how to exegete. Some could teach you.

Stop being a bully. That's all you are being at this point.
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
No, you are taking a well-known construction in Hebrew (at least to those of us who know the language) used to intensify verbal action and trying to extract some clever "spiritual" insight from it... there is nothing legitimate about this kind of unrestrained hermeneutic, particularly when it violates the plain sense of the narrative, which is a reference to the man's physical death should he eat fruit from the tree of knowledge.


With the exception of three ambiguous constructions in 2:20; 3:17 and 3:21, this individual is referred to throughout the garden narrative as "the man" (האדם) rather than by the proper name "Adam" (אדם). As to your question, no, the man did not "drop dead" the moment he bit into the fruit or even shortly thereafter. The Hebrew "on the day" (ביום) need not be understood so rigidly, it can function as a compound preposition "when". The garden narrative (2:4b-3:24) stands in supplemental relationship to the creation account of 1:1-2:3 and in 2:4b there is reference to "on the day" that YHWH God made earth and heaven, yet this collective process was spread out over six days according to the earlier account. Returning to the other use of "to die you will die" (מות תמות) in 1 Kgs 2:37, we can interrogate it similarly. Did Shimei "drop dead" the moment he crossed the Kidron Valley on his way out of Jerusalem? Of course not... he continues on his way, journeys all the way to Gath, retrieves his runaway slaves, returns to Jerusalem and is later summoned by Solomon and finally executed by Benaiah on the king's orders (2:39-46). When Shimei left Jerusalem, his death was certain and happened at an indeterminate point in the future. Similarly, when the man ate the fruit he was forbidden to consume, his death was certain and happened at an indeterminate point in the future.


Satan? There are four agents in the garden narrative: the deity, the man, the woman and the snake. There is no reference whatsoever to a שטן in the text, the musings of later interpreters notwithstanding.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
I see you're here to make the Scriptures understood? Or, under your thumb?
 

Slyzr

Member
/
I see you've made half a dozen posts or so since your computer issues, including elsewhere in this same thread, yet have not returned to directly respond to my critique of your claim about the Hebrew of the pertinent texts. Why is that?

Kind regards,
Jonathan

You said it was a translation issue.

That there is no "and", in Hebrew.

You seemed to imply, / a hyphen would probably be acceptable; good-evil.

Seriously .... your post was weird.

You were kind agreeing with me .....

sr
 
Last edited:

GeneZ

Well-known member
and Jehovah God causeth to sprout from the ground every tree desirable for appearance,
and good for food, and the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge
of good and evil.
Young's Literal Translation.
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
/


You said it was a translation issue.

That there is no "and", in Hebrew.

You seemed to imply, / a hyphen would probably be acceptable; good-evil.

Seriously .... your post was weird.

You were kind agreeing with me .....

sr
Is there any "and" when it says God created man male "and" female?
 

Stephen

Active member
Thanks for your efforts, because they destroy the position of the anti-education Christadelphians.

Saint Athanasius Academy Septuagint is an LXX translation found in the Orthodox Study Bible published in English in 2008.
NETS NETS is a new translation of the Greek Jewish Scriptures, entitled A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included Under that Title (and abbreviated as NETS). The latter is an electronic edition

So if any one of them were sufficiently sharp they could use chronology as a counter to your evidence as well as the fact that the LXX (Septuagint) is in Greek, not Hebrew.

However when one considers the age of the LXX, originally written around the time of Alexander (C.330 BC) by seventy (hence named in Latin numbers for 70) that makes a very compelling argument for the Hebrew vav conjunction phrase טוב ורע

Also the grammar in ANY makes the "translation" of the cultists impossible I am having problems with cutting and pasting Hebrew this AM, so I am using English to explain [EH, you are gonna love this!]

עֵץ S6086 TWOT1670a GK6770329 n.m. Gn 2: 9 tree, trees, wood;—ע׳ abs. Gn 3:3 +, cstr. 3:24 +, עֵץ־ 2:16 +; sf. עֵצְיךָ Dt 28:42, etc.; pl. עֵצִים Ju 9:8 +, cstr. עֲצֵי Is 7:2 +, sf. עֵצֶיךָ Dt 29:10, עֵצֵינוּ La 5:4, etc.;—1. (c. 150 times) a. a standing tree

Brown, F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. (1977). Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (p. 781). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

That is a common masculine singular noun in the construct form.

In the Hebrew text, it is ALSO proceeded by the vav [and]

That makes the tree different than every other sort of tree BECAUSE IT IS A DEFINITE NOUN . It is not wrong to say that due to its construction, it reads "and THE tree".

Definite nouns require adjectives, and in this case one prepositional phrase suffices and is he other half of the construct form Thus we have so far, "The tree of knowledge" and it is the ONLY such tree. BTW knowledge is also a noun

There are two prepositional phrases "of good" and "of evil" that further describe that ONE particular tree It is "of good and evil" and in Hebrew, both of the are in the absolute form. So according to the construction we have a sort of "hypostatic union" of a tree with two natures, an good knowledge nature and an evil knowledge nature

You don't need to be a dendrologist to describe the sort of tree it is and its fruit but Hebrew helps (Apologies to Bob Dylan)


She stated the position stated by the Christadelphian in this thread. Compare:
  • NETS LXX Gen2.9 the tree for knowing what is knowable of good and evil
  • SAAS LXX Gen2.9 the tree of learning the knowledge of good and evil
And to quote the very fist sentence in the thread:
  • "the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil."


How on earth did arrive at the (idiotic) notion that Cynthia said anything that destroyed the position of the Christadelphian posting in this thread? It is Calvinists and Arminians with their vile doctrine of the "total depravity of man" that can't acknowledge the tree of knowledge of "good and evil" includes "good" as one of its properties.


Good grief.
 

John t

Active member
You're trapped. Just like those who try to deny Genesis 1:2.

I have learned from men who know how to exegete. Some could teach you.

Stop being a bully. That's all you are being at this point.
Such an emotional-level response!

If the grammar of a language says thus and such, why do you accuse another of being an evil bully when he points something out? In that respect, your answer is no different than that which we get from the anti-education Christadelphians here.

While the grammar of the Greek of the NT is more intense than that of the Hebrew in the OT, both grammars significantly contribute to our modern understanding.

While you never alluded to his attempting to "lord it over you" I can assure you that he is not doing so. For sure, his Hebrew is netter than mine, but I can check what he says through my Bible software, and he has not gone overboard.

For sure, EH is not an Evangelical Christian, so his understanding of Christian doctrine is skewed. But as long as we are working on the lemma level, we have no problem agreeing that the Hebrew surely says this and not that. That is the commonality that we can enjoy as academics.
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
Such an emotional-level response!

If the grammar of a language says thus and such, why do you accuse another of being an evil bully when he points something out? In that respect, your answer is no different than that which we get from the anti-education Christadelphians here.

While the grammar of the Greek of the NT is more intense than that of the Hebrew in the OT, both grammars significantly contribute to our modern understanding.

While you never alluded to his attempting to "lord it over you" I can assure you that he is not doing so. For sure, his Hebrew is netter than mine, but I can check what he says through my Bible software, and he has not gone overboard.

For sure, EH is not an Evangelical Christian, so his understanding of Christian doctrine is skewed. But as long as we are working on the lemma level, we have no problem agreeing that the Hebrew surely says this and not that. That is the commonality that we can enjoy as academics.

Sir.... I have, and still do, learn from those who teach from the Original languages. One was a language professor (retired Harvard), and others that could teach at any seminary, but chose instead to teach congregations to have them grow soundly in depth and insight into the gems to be dug out from God's Word.

Now.... You come here to a good forum for Christians? And demand that we become a forum designed for language students?
Its unfair, for there is no way to reason in return unless one is a student of the original languages.

Some of us come here being overly impressed with themselves. Or, inversely come here like a rookie cop, not knowing how yet to wield their gift's authority. I have contact and have personally known theological PhD's who became highly arrogant and God could not use them. Wasted gifts.

Sound exegesis is a great tool for advancement in the construction of our spiritual houses. (1 Corinthians 3:11-15).

In the wrong hands, though. It becomes destructive and manipulative. In serving wood, hay, and stubble.

What about the Granville Sharp rule? Reads like the Greek literally?

There were manners of speech that the ancient Jews used that do not work when translated literally. Its takes someone who has studied and understands their idiomatic way of thinking to render a good translation.

btw... (spelled phonetically) ah-nee lo yodaiah Ev'rit. You understand that? I needed to learn that while living in Jerusalem when I was in school years ago.
 
Last edited:

Slyzr

Member
Such an emotional-level response!

If the grammar of a language says thus and such, why do you accuse another of being an evil bully when he points something out? In that respect, your answer is no different than that which we get from the anti-education Christadelphians here.

While the grammar of the Greek of the NT is more intense than that of the Hebrew in the OT, both grammars significantly contribute to our modern understanding.

While you never alluded to his attempting to "lord it over you" I can assure you that he is not doing so. For sure, his Hebrew is netter than mine, but I can check what he says through my Bible software, and he has not gone overboard.

For sure, EH is not an Evangelical Christian, so his understanding of Christian doctrine is skewed. But as long as we are working on the lemma level, we have no problem agreeing that the Hebrew surely says this and not that. That is the commonality that we can enjoy as academics.

This from a guy who keeps on postulating, 'Isiah does not understand the tree'.

Paraphrased of course .....

sr
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
Same thing ....

All you said in your first response was the text had an AND.

Which it does ......

However, you never said the AND was between good and evil.



Now then, we have been round and round on this.

And you STILL have not shown the AND between good evil; the name of the tree was good evil.

It's the same thing ......

Then the good evil shows ...... good and evil for their prioria.

IT IS STILL THE TREE OF GOOD EVIL.

sr
The ancient Jews did not include words to be understood by its context.

If an ancient Jew walked outside his home and saw it was raining?

Going back inside he would not announce to those still inside.. "It is raining." Instead, he would simply state... "Raining."

They had an idiomatic way of expressing certain things.

Good-Evil did not need an "and" added to express what Jews automatically understood to be so.

Its like saying... Here is a kitchen sink. It can give to hot cold water.
 

Buzzard

Active member
Thanks for your efforts, because they destroy the position of the anti-education Christadelphians.


However when one considers the age of the LXX, originally written around the time of Alexander (C.330 BC) by seventy (hence named in Latin numbers for 70) that makes a very compelling argument for the Hebrew vav conjunction phrase טוב ורע

Psalms 119:97
O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.

98 Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies:
for they are ever with me
.
99 I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation.

100 I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts.

John t said:
LXX, originally written around the time of Alexander (C.330 BC) by seventy (hence named in Latin numbers for 70)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John; who were these 70 that supposedly translate the LXX


The most Base of Men
and that is found in the Book of the Kings

2nd Question;
Who does the Law say are the only ones of the tribe of Levi
and only the Sons of a specific Family
were authorized to do what these most "base of men"
claimed for themselves

The LXX is a fraud

seek and ye shall find, john; but look in the correct place
 
Top