Isn't Noah's the only true bloodline?

Willum · Post by **Willum** » Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:52 am

Since everyone is derived from Noah and his four sons, (that must have been a happy family with a lot of love,) what is the point of the generations before him?

I mean everything and everyone came from him right?
He could have made everything up before then, right?

At this nexus in history, how does anyone have any reliability that what came from him and his four sons was true?
Only one kept records, right? Before there was writing?

Isn't Noah the true Adam? and everything prior, a pointless exercise?
and why not at this point, just have started over instead of maintaining the horror wrought in the Garden? is God an idiot?

Inigo Montoya · Post by **Inigo Montoya** » Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:28 am

Whether or not the events occurred precisely as recorded is secondary at best

I absolutely love this. It ought to be your signature.

In a nutshell, the most important thing about what's in the Bible isn't whether it's true or not.

That's really something.

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Fri Nov 16, 2018 5:12 am

Willum wrote: [Replying to post 19 by bluethread]

As far as pointing out Bible verses, I like it: It is always good to show a believer just how little they know about their book of ultimate truth.
Or is that Book of Ultimate Allegory?

Isaiah 34:7

Regarding the religion that I practice, why would I change that based on a verse with unicorns in it?
Because that's what a sane person would do when they realized a book contained unicorns. They would realize the book it came out of was a book of fairy tales, and pay it no more heed.
Wouldn't you?
The term is Ra'em, which the KJV translates as unicorn. No one knows what a Ra'em actually is. Yes, that has caused me to question the reliability of the KJV. That is why I consult several different translations and research the underlying terms rather than just accepting the translated term.

Why must it state history in a way that is satisfactory to you?
Not me, posterity, history, you know, something you could make decisions with some reliability with.
In other words - not vainglory or fairy tales, nor especially vainglorious fairy-tales.

I mean you don't make decisions based on Mao's propaganda right? That he is a demi-god that is so awesome?

Of course the Hebrew were the best in Yahweh's eyes, they wrote it!
No, I do not see Moshe' as a demigod, as you appear to be using the term. my study of HaTorah has convinced me that He was a quite fallible individual. Also, the Scriptures do make it clear that Israel is not superior to other nations. If it was simply written by the people of Israel, it is hardly vainglorious. Self deprecation is hardly a characteristic of vainglory.

Now let's get back to my question:
So, to be clear, you are saying the verbally transferred history, with unicorns and people turning to salt is more reliable than recorded history and events of comparable days?
Well, all of the written origin stories of the time were chronicled oral traditions. Of those that I have seen, HaTorah appears to me to be the most plausible.

Willum · Post by **Willum** » Fri Nov 16, 2018 5:19 am

[Replying to post 22 by bluethread]

The term is Ra'em, which the KJV translates as unicorn

Ra = horse, em = horn. People know exactly what it is. SOME people deny it and apologize for it.
The reason it is translated as unicorn is because people DO know what it is.

I SAID:

I mean you don't make decisions based on Mao's propaganda right? That he is a demi-god that is so awesome?

Mao not Mushe.

Well, all of the written origin stories of the time were chronicled oral traditions. Of those that I have seen, HaTorah appears to me to be the most plausible.

You should try reading history and natural science. Then you wouldn't need to believe in unicorns.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:51 am

Willum wrote:
The term is Ra'em, which the KJV translates as unicorn
Ra = horse, em = horn.

QUESTION Does Isaiah refer to a mythical horselike creature that with a single, spiraling horn projecting from its forehead?

ISAIAH 34:7*

And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls" - King James Version
* also see Job 39:9-12, Nu 23:22; 24:8, De 33:17; Ps 22:21; 92:10, Ps 29:6

While the word "unicorn" appears in the King James Version, more modern translations however refer to "wild oxen" or "wild bulls" . See various other translation https://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/34-7.htm

THE ORIGINAL HEBREW

The Hebrew word found at Isaiah 34 does NOT derive from the words "horse" and "horn" (the Hebrew for horse is "soos" not "ra"; and the Hebrew for "horn" is "qeren"not "em"). The word used by the Hebrew writers is "rem" comes from the root "raam" , meaning to lift or be lifted up (possibly a reference to the animals extraordinary force). Far from being mythical horselike creatures wild bulls are refered to as game in many ancient inscriptions.

Four wild bulls, strong and fierce, in the desert . . . with my long arrows tipped with iron, and with heavy blows, I took their lives. Their skin and their horns I brought to my city of Ashur. - translated by H. C. Rawlinson, English Orientalist

LOST IN TRANSLATION

The Septuagint translated the Hebrew reem as monokertos which literally means one horn (not horse with a horn) a definition that can in theory apply to any single horned animal (The king James Translators speculated the reference may be to a rhinoceros). Greek language experts experts suggest that, while monokertos does literally mean "one horned" the term may have refer to symetrical balance rather than literal number and could have come to be umbrella term for any fearsomely strong animal whther with one or two horn(s). It is from the Septuagint that the translators came up with the English "unicorn".

CONCLUSION There is no reason to believe that the Hebrew writers were ever referring to a mythical horselike creature when they wrote the word "reem". Hebrew language experts confirm that the word refers to a "wild bull". King James Version reference to a "unicorn" is translation from the Greek translation which is speaking about horned animals possibly the now extinct aurochs.

JW

RELATED POSTS

Why are there so many bible translations?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 791#851791

Does the bible say bats are birds?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 428#822428

Inigo Montoya · Post by **Inigo Montoya** » Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:54 am

Well, all of the written origin stories of the time were chronicled oral traditions. Of those that I have seen, HaTorah appears to me to be the most plausible.

And the hits keep on coming!

So your position is that the Torah appears to be the most plausible version of Earth's history whether or not the events occurred precisely as recorded (which is secondary at best).

That's the Jewiest thing I've ever heard, and I don't mean that in any derogatory way. Actually quite the opposite.

Willum · Post by **Willum** » Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:19 am

[Replying to post 24 by JehovahsWitness]

Yeah, that has been discredited, it took me all of five minutes to discover that the people who wrote the KJV and others knew Greek, Latin and Hebrew such as it is, pretty well.

Certainly more than modern apologists do.
and I am sure more than you.

Plus, if it wouldn't embarrass people personally they could look up the word.

Let's bottom line it: The Bible expresses the existence of unicorns, talking snakes and donkeys, magic fruit, magic people, and God. and you believe it.

But you know, this pointless segue would be better put on the other thread, History vs the Bible, why is it religious folks can't stay on topic?

I suppose if they did the conclusions would be, "Oh yeah, it's a fairy-tale, I guess I should move on with my life."

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:23 am

[Replying to post 26 by Willum]

Are you suggesting there is something in my post that is linguistically unsound or inaccurate? If so could you please state specifically what that is.

Thank you,

JW

Willum · Post by **Willum** » Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:55 am

[Replying to post 27 by JehovahsWitness]

Well, yes, it supports a book of fairy-tales as if it were real, apologizing for its mistakes when they are exposed. I mean how many made up explanations for made up explanations are required before a persons sees something is made-up?

I mean, don't you find that unsound?

Willum · Post by **Willum** » Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:33 pm

So what kind of assurances are there that Noah's story is a correct one?

Wouldn't that be an opportune time for Satan to completely bollux up God's plan, again?

I mean it wasn't written down, right?
So what kind of assurances do you have that Noah's account is right?

Come to think of it, how do you know that one of the Nephelim didn't kill Noah right before the rains started? That would make far more sense, people are still bad, right?

bluethread · Post by **bluethread** » Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:09 am

Willum wrote: [Replying to post 22 by bluethread]

The term is Ra'em, which the KJV translates as unicorn
Ra = horse, em = horn. People know exactly what it is. SOME people deny it and apologize for it.
The reason it is translated as unicorn is because people DO know what it is.

No the best fit translation of ra' is "evil" and 'em is "mother". So, if one were to define it in that way the animal would be an "evil mother". Is that what a unicorn is?

I SAID:
I mean you don't make decisions based on Mao's propaganda right? That he is a demi-god that is so awesome?
Mao not Mushe.

Sorry, I presumed you were equating Mao with Moshe'. What does Mao have to do with what we are discussing?

Well, all of the written origin stories of the time were chronicled oral traditions. Of those that I have seen, HaTorah appears to me to be the most plausible.
You should try reading history and natural science. Then you wouldn't need to believe in unicorns.

I never said that I believe in unicorns. You did based on flawed etymology and the view that one particular English translation is correct.