Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

11377RE: [CreationTalk] Re: Biblical Eons

Expand Messages
  • Chuck
    Oct 29, 2012
      > We have the text of the Bible accurately preserved in its
      > original languages, in most cases - although Matthew
      > probably was originally written in Aramaic.

      You indicated the opposite previously but OK.

      >What I am saying is it is illegitimate for religious tradition to
      > change the meaning of words to fit their religious concepts.

      I would agree if that is what is being done but I disagree with you that it has been done.

      > E.g. changing the Greek word for eons (aion) the Greek word
      > used for the Old Testament Hebrew word "olam" to eternal.
      > How do we know what the words meant? We have documents
      > in Greek and Hebrew. Moses said take 12 stones out of the
      > Jordan and set them up as a memorial for olam. The stones are
      > long gone, they are not in place for eternity, but for ages.

      The passage in question is Joshua 4:4-7

      4 Then Joshua called the twelve men, whom

      he had prepared of the children of Israel, out

      of every tribe a man:

      5 And Joshua said unto them, Pass over

      before the ark of the LORD your God into the

      midst of Jordan, and take ye up every man of

      you a stone upon his shoulder, according unto

      the number of the tribes of the children of


      6 That this may be a sign among you, that

      when your children ask their fathers in time to

      come, saying, What mean ye by these stones?

      7 Then ye shall answer them, That the

      waters of Jordan were cut off before the ark of

      the covenant of the LORD; when it passed

      over Jordan, the waters of Jordan were cut off:

      and these stones shall be for a memorial unto

      the children of Israel for ever.

      First of all it was Joshua not Moses that set up the 12 stones as a memorial.

      Second Prove that they are not there we may have the wrong spot or they may have be buried or both.

      Third when the Bible quotes some one it quotes that person accurately even if that person is lying through their teeth. Now I am not saying that Joshua was lying but he could have been in error on how long they would last. Note this is Joshua speaking not God.

      Forth if these stones are indeed gone then you can’t even say they lasted for ages since it has been at most 3500 years since these events took place and most likely they did last more than 1000 years or so, hardly qualifying as ages.

      Finally in a way the memorial can be said to last for ever since it is enshrined in the Bible which as the word of God will last for ever.

      > Here is Aristotle's description of the word aion both with respect
      > to the pagan gods and with respect to mortal men.


      > It is therefore evident that there is neither space, nor time, nor
      > vacuum beyond. Wherefore the things there are not adapted by
      > nature to exist in place; nor does time make them grow old;
      > neither under the highest (heaven) is there any change of any
      > one of these things, they being placed beyond it; but unchangeable,
      > passionless - they continue through all aióna. For indeed, the

      > word itself according to the ancients, divinely expressed this.
      > For the period which comprehends the time of every one's life,
      > beyond which, according to nature, nothing exists, is called his
      > aión. And for the same reason, the period of the whole heaven
      > even the infinite time of all things, and the period comprehending
      > that infinity is aión, eternity, deriving its name from aei, einai,
      > always being, immortal and divine."


      > With respect to the pagan gods, who unlike the biblical God
      > absolutely could not not change, it was an infinite duration.
      > With respect to mortals, in ancient times it was used for the
      > duration of a lifetime.

      This is totally consistent with αἰών have more than one meaning ranging from a period of time or age, to eternity. So I see no evidence of any change in word meaning in these cases, I do however see the KJV translators using the appropriate English word given the context.

      > What am I saying. Words HAVE MEANING IN THEIR
      > HISTORICAL CONTEXT. Translators have no right to
      > change the meaning to fit their religious persuasion or their
      > philosophical concepts.

      I never said they did, but then again I do not believe the KJV translators changed a thing but that they faithfully translated the Bible in English by God’s direction, such that it is God’s inspired and inerrant word in English.

      >I am not wise.

      I will agree 100% on this point!

      > I am not introducing some new teaching. I am not corrupting
      > God's word. I advocate accepting the biblical words as they
      > meant when they were written.

      By the way I was not calling you a cult leader but trying to show that you sound a lot like one. However I do see what you are doing as twisting the actual meaning of the Biblical text even if you do not think that is what you are doing. As I have said before I simply do not see your interpretation in the Bible even when I do check the Greek and Hebrew and probably never will.

      > I beg you to read the original text. Don't read the traditions
      > of men.

      Since we do not have the original text (autographs) I take you mean the Greek and Hebrew and in that case in fact I have read them. I can read and understand Greek and I have studied Hebrew as well. When I do, I do not see your interpretation but tend to agree with the KJV.

      > I challenge you to look up at the galaxies - which in our age

      > you can do without a telescope - since we taxpayers have

      > access to the photos we pay for with the Hubble and hopefully

      > someday the James Webb.

      I do look up at the galaxies with and with Hubble. I have my own telescope as well.

      However when I look at those galaxies, I do not see your interpretation of the data. This is because there is more date coming in from Hubble than the visible light image and that data tells a different story than you are telling. It’s that simple I am looking and what I see fits well with Biblical creation from a young Earth perspective.

      > Changing Earth Creationist are not a new cult.

      You missed my point which is that some of what you say is reminiscent of a cult. I was giving you a warning about the direction I see you heading not a condemnation of where you are.

      ------ Charles Creager Jr.

      Genesis Science <http://gscim.com/> Mission

      Online <http://store.gscim.com/> Store

      Genesis <http://genesismission.4t.com/> Mission

      Creation Science Talk <http://creationsciencetalk.blogspot.com/>

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 13 messages in this topic