Again, something to keep in mind in debates. A bit of bad wording and you get bashed for itCeT-To wrote:That would be a better answer but yeah im just saying, saying " breaking natural laws" just gives another chance for athiests to ridicule God. God doesn't break anything, nature produces certain effects and God produces greater effects- that i think is the right way to view it.
. Ok, found the 1st chapter of Genesis and honestly seems... weird. Perhaps Rich should make a page about this (Aberrant Theology? Well it clearly isn't Christian). But I'll have to look into it further. I still don't quite get it what they're doing. Or how a lot of the verses make sense for that matter.Also, I read some pages from The Chronicle Project, I'm still a bit confused though. Is there, say, a (at least partial) translation of the Bible using this method? Also, since there are two "concepts" they combine together, isn't there at least some uncertainty as to what people thought putting them together would mean? Looking at the way they put together words, it doesn't seem all that clear to me.
Well, it wouldn't be "Christian", it would be Jewish Theology, cuz Genesis is the first book of the Torah. When I read their translations, I don't see any big difference in meanings as compared with say, the KJV. If you were to pick apart scripture with a concordance, you would get the same general thing.SnowDrops wrote:Ok, found the 1st chapter of Genesis and honestly seems... weird. Perhaps Rich should make a page about this (Aberrant Theology? Well it clearly isn't Christian). But I'll have to look into it further. I still don't quite get it what they're doing. Or how a lot of the verses make sense for that matter.Also, I read some pages from The Chronicle Project, I'm still a bit confused though. Is there, say, a (at least partial) translation of the Bible using this method? Also, since there are two "concepts" they combine together, isn't there at least some uncertainty as to what people thought putting them together would mean? Looking at the way they put together words, it doesn't seem all that clear to me.
Well, of course. The language used is completely different. And as I stated before, if you were to get out your KJV and Concordance, and parse out the verses, you would get a broader picture of each verse. Keep in mind, a single Hebrew word is translated into dozens of different english words. In one case, over 80 different English words, and with widely differing meanings.SnowDrops wrote:Really? You don't see any difference between the results of the SDH translation and say, the NIV?
Well, I would have to read more than just a small part of Genesis, but yes, I think there are some doctrinal changes. Have you read the notes at the bottom of the page? I'll admit the changes are arguable in some cases, but in any case they "refute" (if correct) certain groups of Christianity (I think that would include YEC), which might actually be a good thing (less disagreement).rainagain wrote:Well, of course. The language used is completely different. And as I stated before, if you were to get out your KJV and Concordance, and parse out the verses, you would get a broader picture of each verse. Keep in mind, a single Hebrew word is translated into dozens of different english words. In one case, over 80 different English words, and with widely differing meanings.SnowDrops wrote:Really? You don't see any difference between the results of the SDH translation and say, the NIV?
What I think is most interesting is the overall concept of sounds/letters having root meanings. It makes the Hebrew language a sort of machine-code for the human mind.
Is there a doctrinal change in the SDH that you're seeing, or is it just the language used?
rain