> General Discussions
Another Possible Example of Where Proper Translation Meets Science
Dennis Vogel:
--- Quote from: indianabob on March 05, 2020, 09:31:31 PM ---Hi again Dennis,
You make a valid point.
However if we take what was written according to how the people of that day and time would have understood it (without lots of explanation because they were accustomed to speak in a familiar manner) then I believe that the hearer would have understood it spiritually without any explanation such as we who depend upon a translation would need.
Please also consider the following verse from Matthew 10:
Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Mat 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Mat 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
Mat 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Also in Luke 14:
Luk 14:25 And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them,
Luk 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not [love less] his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Luk 14:27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
Luk 14:28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?
Luk 14:29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,
Luk 14:30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.
Luk 14:31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?
Luk 14:32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.
Luk 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
Hoping to add a little light...Bob
--- End quote ---
I agree Bob. You are correct. They understood it was not meant to be taken literally. It's symbolic. That's the whole point.
Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
Have you not considered Gen 3:20 is talking about the "living" the same way Mat 8:22 talks about the "dead"?
I think the real problem here is people want to believe Eve is the mother of every human being that ever lived. But that's not what the above verse says. It does not say Eve is the mother of all humans. It says "living" which Strong's says can mean "literally or figuratively."
Adam was alive at this time. Was Eve also his mother? Is Eve also the mother of all the dead? Accordingly she should be because all humans die.
Strong's says the Hebrew word "all" can also mean "any" or "as many as." This is the same as the Greek word "all" and can also legitimately mean "as many as."
So who are the dead and who are the living in these two verses? Who inspired those two verses? Are they connected?
Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
indianabob:
Hi Dennis,
Thanks for that further explanation. Much appreciated.
I'll think on it some more.
Indiana Bob
Dennis Vogel:
--- Quote from: nshan on March 05, 2020, 09:58:46 PM ---
--- Quote from: Dennis Vogel on March 05, 2020, 09:18:17 AM ---
--- Quote ---I also don't think when Eve became the mother of all living leads to any different interpretation.
--- End quote ---
I have not been following this. I have other things to deal with right now and I've barely skimmed it a few times. But I just saw the above.
Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
Mat 8:22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
As Ray points out time and again. The bible is full of symbols, metaphors, etc. Neither verse should be taken literally.
--- End quote ---
I understand that Dennis, but if Eve was spiritually dead how is she the mother of all spiritually living? You acknowledge the figures of old such as Noah and Moses were all real and they represented something for the elect of God for our admonishment and yet these were all their actual stories. I'm not sure where I should begin throwing out stories in the scripture I don't like because of the beliefs of the current Zeitgeist it just doesn't make sense at least not to me.
--- End quote ---
I hope I did not imply Eve was spiritually dead? Because I do not see that. If anything she would have to be one of the living to be the mother of them.
Wanda:
--- Quote ---We all sin and fall short of God's glory, so I'm confused why you would say Eve can't be the mother of all living because she's spiritually dead. Are we all spiritually dead?
didn't say that Wanda. She is the mother of all living, but she was spiritually dead or do you not agree? Because of Jesus Christ we are not all spiritually dead, but we should reckon ourselves dead to sin and alive for Him. Without Him there is no life. I'm confused how I can be completely clear and yet you're interpreting it as though I'm saying Eve isn't the mother of all living? I don't understand how any of your previous comments negates what I'm saying.
--- End quote ---
My apologies Nshan, I see where I confused things. Without carefully reading I misunderstood you to mean, because Eve sinned she was spiritually dead. And no, I don't believe she was alive in Christ, as one of the elect. However, she is the mother of both those spiritually alive as well as the spiritually dead, for the reasons I previously posted.
Genesis 3 CLV
20 And calling is the human his wife's name Eve, for she becomes the mother of all the living.
Considering Salvation is first to those in Christ, I can also see that Eve would first become the mother of all who would be alive in Christ.
Through her seed, (Seth's) Godly line, the Savior would come. I don't see where Eve herself would need to be spiritually living. Maybe Dennis has some insight into that.
nshan:
Just a heads up, I'm not trying to be rude or attack anyone in this post so sorry if it comes off this way. And don't apologize Wanda I'm trying to make sense out of all this. This topic is a bit personal to me as it feels flat out evil to cast away people from the family of God. Maybe we're at different points of understanding.
To me at least it doesn't take a lot to understand that Eve is the mother of all living BECAUSE she made living beings aka babies with Adam. You say line upon line and precept upon precept yet you don't even seem to want to humor the scriptures that would completely contradict the notion of more than one Adam or Adam + friends. We either all die in Adam or the scriptures lie and we don't. Can you show me where it says some die in Adam please so I can be sure Christ is only saving the few and not all men especially of those who believe? I believe you think the above verse Gen 3:20 doesn't say that because you don't even have multiple witnesses, so perhaps you don't even fully understand it or the implications of what you're saying (casting people off from the family of God). Do you really want to believe we're not all God's offspring through Adam (first the physical one and then the spiritual one) and he isn't far from any one of us? Isn't that what Paul said, or are we not really all in Adam? You are not wrong about Adam and Eve being symbolic but so were: Moses, Noah, Joseph, David etc. and yet were these real people with their actual stories. Their lives were written for our admonishment. Unless you want to start saying things like the walls of Jericho didn't actually fall down, the Red Sea was never parted, Israel never had a king...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version