Gen. 6: The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”
Well, He must have regretted the animals, too. With the possible exception of fishes, plancton, corals, and co. Or maybe He did not find an efficient way to get rid only of the beings He regretted. He must have thought like a Windows user: a reboot is always gut (German for good, just to keep the rhyme).
By the way, why did He say "the animals....and the creatures that move along the earth"? The latter seems to entail the former. I suspect the authors of the Bible were paid by the number of words, no matter how redundant, they used.
If God doesn't give free will to humans, then perhaps humans is just like a robot and will just do whatever as God commands. Please explain why do you think those humans who don't have free will is capable of filing complaint to God that they are being forced to serve or obey God.
Does the angels in the heaven have freewill? Does those angels complain to God that they are being forced to serve or obey God?
God does Not interfere with our choices. ( This is proven out by the daily news reports )
It's highly variable and depends on the situation and who you're talking to. Apologetics and scriptural recontextualization is highly complex and could easily be a fool time job.
By the way, why did He say "the animals....and the creatures that move along the earth"? The latter seems to entail the former. I suspect the authors of the Bible were paid by the number of words, no matter how redundant, they used.
The word for animals is usually used for domesticated animals as opposed to wild animals, although I guess over here its being used more broadly to mean land mammals. The word for "creatures that move along the earth" refers to insects and stuff like that. Its actually one word "רמש" and it means "things that trample".
The word for animals is usually used for domesticated animals as opposed to wild animals, although I guess over here its being used more broadly to mean land mammals. The word for "creatures that move along the earth" refers to insects and stuff like that. Its actually one word "רמש" and it means "things that trample".
But why did He decide to kill the beetles? Or the cats? Or that little cute deer trying to find some drinking water before being hit by a mountain thereof?
Why not zap humans out of existence, and keep the rest? That would have been vastly more efficient and requiring far less logistics.
I cannot imagine those "poor" elected marsupials hopping (and swimming) 20000 kilometers, twice, so that their species is saved. And why did they hop back? Probably the ecological habitat in Australia was not much better than the habitat in Iraq, after the devastation.
Evidence is difficult, as my beliefs about why god made us grew slowly over some two decades of study of Torah and Kabbala. Quoting chapter & verse will be therefore problematic, as some things I simply will not remember where exactly the info came from.
However I believe that understanding the 'why' is fundamental to understanding our dysfunctional relationship to him, which resulted in the regret and following woes.
So I will compose a short explanation of this with a bit more thought and post later.
Actually, my goal is never really to convince others to believe me, but to clearly and completely present my views. If I cause confusion, I obviously failed at this, but alternate views and disagreement is not fail.
Thanks for explain, since you have no intention to convince me to believe quite some of your statements which relate to your op is correct, i'll no longer ask you to provide evidence to support your statements. It seems like your op is more for the discussion between believers rather than between believers and non-believers.
But why did He decide to kill the beetles? Or the cats? Or that little cute deer trying to find some drinking water before being hit by a mountain thereof?
Why not zap humans out of existence, and keep the rest? That would have been vastly more efficient and requiring far less logistics.
I cannot imagine those "poor" elected marsupials hopping (and swimming) 20000 kilometers, twice, so that their species is saved. And why did they hop back? Probably the ecological habitat in Australia was not much better than the habitat in Iraq, after the devastation.
I forget the sources, but I've read some Jewish theologians explaining that man's behavior impacts animal nature so that the animals were largely ruined as well.
The animals meant for the ark were brought by angels according to Jewish sources.
I forget the sources, but I've read some Jewish theologians explaining that man's behavior impacts animal nature so that the animals were largely ruined as well.
The animals meant for the ark were brought by angels according to Jewish sources.
And, I suppose, the same angels brought them back to their (devastated) home.
And you believe those theologians, right?
Now, what is more likely, according to your own personal rationality, which I am sure you possess:
1) That angels provide complimentary return tickets to some kangaroos, because God believes they belong to Australia, for some reason
2) That there was no universal flood. And marsupials stayed where they were at all times. And that some theologians are making up things to explain away the obvious.
And, I suppose, the same angels brought them back to their (devastated) home.
And you believe those theologians, right?
Now, what is more likely, according to your own personal rationality, which I am sure you possess:
1) That angels provide complimentary return tickets to kangaroos, because God believes they belong to Australia, for some reason
2) That there was no universal flood. And marsupials stayed where they were at all times. And that some theologians are making up things to explain away the obvious.
I don't think "since we don't know the reason why a god would want to keep kangaroos in Australia, its irrational to believe the flood happened" is such a great argument.
But regardless, I remain strongly committed to Orthodox Judaism.
Yup, and sometimes it is relevant, as when both sides fail to present assessable evidence.
Since you posted the Hebrew word נחם I expected that you'd at least be able to recognize the title of the paragraph bearing the same word as the source for my translation. My mistake.
All of which express the very same sense of condition, which is the issue you're fighting here.
In fact, if you want to appeal to popularity, then those 50 scholars are against the who-knows-how-many Jewish scholars who improvised the Hebrew word חרטה for regret, because they believed that no such word existed in Biblical Hebew.
I won't ask for evidence for this assertion because I'm certain you're talking off the top of your head and have none. This isn't to say I don't believe that errors in translations haven't occurred, but not to the extent that it's happened in a case where 50 translations are in agreement. Without the ability to asses the evidence of "X" I'll take the conclusions of those who do have the ability, and defer to the majority opinion rather than side with those who share my bias.
I am not suggesting that the ethnicity of a scholar lends them greater understanding. I am saying that Jewish scholars writing for an audience that reads the text in the original Hebrew have to provide explanations for grammatical irregularities and translations that won't be obvious to other readers who can only read the translation.
So a scholar who happens to be Jewish but is writing a translation for an English-only audience would generally fall into the latter category (unless otherwise writing a work analyzing such grammatical irregularities, in which case that would be true of any scholar).
Of the 22 translations, only one of them accurately identifies that the grammatical construct of the first word of Genesis should be "In the beginning of". To remedy that, they change the tense found in the Hebrew of the following word so that it conforms to the construction of the first word.
Literal translations often suffer from a lack of coherency, which makes understanding difficult because they fail to conveying the sense of the original text. Good, effective translating almost always involves changing from one grammar to another.
A few examples of a failure to do so:
Hotel in Acapulco: “The Manager has Personally Passed All the Water Served Here”
Cocktail lounge, Norway: “Ladies are Requested Not to have Children in the Bar”
East African newspaper: “A new swimming pool is rapidly taking shape since the contractors have thrown in the bulk of their workers.”
Hotel in Japan: “You are invited to take advantage of the chambermaid.”
According to your reasoning, since only 1 translation out of 22, translated it that way, it is false.
A bit more of Young's Literal Translation of Genesis 1
1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --
2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
Is this good English grammar? Of course it isn't. Does it make grammatical sense? Of course it doesn't. Consider replacing a few words, but retaining the sense of the YLT construction.
1 In the beginning of Jim's preparing the meat and cheese -- 2 the cheese was an imported Swiss, and Jim sang Ave Maria in the shower.
The "of" indicates further exposition on the Jim's preparing, but it never comes. (I do recognize that the "--" may function as ellipses denoting omitted material, but why would god do such a thing?) Same with "In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth." One is tempted to cry out "Yeah, Okay, but what happened In the beginning of God's preparing?" Think this is the response god intended from his readers. I wouldn't think so, which is why I believe the translators chose to use the common form of Gen 1:1. So while the YLT may not be false it does fail to communicate. And for all it adds to one's understanding of what god did in the beginning, it could be left out.
Actually, "In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth" tells us nothing other than that god prepared the heavens and earth: In the beginning God prepared the heavens and the earth. OR "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Meanwhile, just about all major Jewish commentators point this out, such that the first verse in the Rabbinic Bible is followed by pages of commentary.
Consider it however you like, but when one gets down to the brass tacks, it is what it is: "The Lord regretted that He had made mankind on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart" In other words, god screwed up. Don't like the phrasing? So be it, but in light of all the superlatives heaped upon god by his devotees I find it no less appropriate .
Okay.
You mean people who don't have free will will complain that they had no choice in matters?
If God doesn't give free will to humans, then perhaps humans is just like a robot and will just do whatever as God commands. Please explain why do you think those humans who don't have free will is capable of filing complaint to God that they are being forced to serve or obey God.
Does the angels in the heaven have freewill? Does those angels complain to God that they are being forced to serve or obey God?
I don't have the belief either God exists or doesn't exists.
I can understand that is what you believe, but i personally don't have the belief you are describing nor i have the opposite beliefs.
I can understand that is what you believe.
Please share here the complete list of Golden Rule you're referring to.
Since the Golden Rule says to do unto others as you would others do unto you that includes every and all lists.
Jesus' illustration about the neighborly good Samaritan is a good example of following the Golden Rule as found at Luke 10:30-37 because he helped that injured man where he could help him.
Besides the guiding Golden Rule mentioned at Matthew 7:12 it is also mentioned at Leviticus 19:18.
I find Jesus even gave us a NEW commandment found at John 13:34-35 which is to have the same self-sacrificing love for others as he had.
Sure, if people were robots without free-will choices then they would complain they had No choices.
Since people are Not robots, then they do Not have to do whatever God commands.
If created with out free will, then I can agree they would Not be able or capable of complaining, but if they could they would.
By the Genesis account I find Angels do have free-will choices. Some chose to put on materialized bodies before the Flood of Noah's day and help cause violence on Earth. So, Angels are Not forced to love God, just like some people, there are also fallen angels, so to speak, who won't serve God.
No, I mean that each individual scholar doesn't agree with himself on how to translate the word. In this verse they translate it as "regret" but in another verse they translate it as "comfort" and a couple of other ways in Gen. 27:42.
I won't ask for evidence for this assertion because I'm certain you're talking off the top of your head and have none. This isn't to say I don't believe that errors in translations haven't occurred, but not to the extent that it's happened in a case where 50 translations are in agreement. Without the ability to asses the evidence of "X" I'll take the conclusions of those who do have the ability, and defer to the majority opinion rather than side with those who share my bias.
My evidence was provided in the following about the first verse in Genesis. Another example is Isaiah 53:8 where the last word is translated as "to him" rather than "to them" as it is translated in 50 other occurrences of the word. Although I suspect that one was done purposely as it would cause an issue with it being about Jesus.
Literal translations often suffer from a lack of coherency, which makes understanding difficult by failing to conveying the sense of the original text. Good, effective translating almost always involves changing from one grammar to another.
A few examples of a failure to do so:
Hotel in Acapulco: “The Manager has Personally Passed All the Water Served Here”
Cocktail lounge, Norway: “Ladies are Requested Not to have Children in the Bar”
East African newspaper: “A new swimming pool is rapidly taking shape since the contractors have thrown in the bulk of their workers.”
Hotel in Japan: “You are invited to take advantage of the chambermaid.”
Yes, I agree. However as I pointed out, even a good translation might not include the nuance inherent in the original. That is the point I am making here. I am not disagreeing that the general idea that the verse is trying to convey is something like regret. I'm only pointing out that the nuance of the word allows for a more precise understanding especially when used in reference to G-d. That nuance resolves the OP's question, but doesn't lend itself to easy reading in translation and so is lost.
Maybe another way to look at it is, its not difficult to understand that the authors usage of words like "walking", "finger", "hand" "feet" when referring to G-d are meant to be understood metaphorically. And my position is that when emotional references are used in reference to G-d, they are also meant to be understood metaphorically.
In any case, we have Gen. 6:6 and Num. 23:19 that are conflicting and require resolution. Whether you believe it was G-d that dictated the text or a Redactor that put it together, the author didn't believe these verses contradicted each other. My scholar resolves this contradiction and all instances where this root is found but context doesn't allow for similar translation. Your translators do none of that.
A bit more of Young's Literal Translation of genesis 1
1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --
2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
Is this good English grammar? Of course it isn't. Does it make grammatical sense? Of course it doesn't. Consider replacing a few words, but retaining the sense of the YLT construction.
1 In the beginning of Jim's preparing the meat and cheese -- 2 the cheese was an imported Swiss, and Jim sang Ave Maria in the shower.
The "of" indicates further exposition on the Jim's preparing, but it never comes. Same with "In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth." One is tempted to cry out "Yeah, Okay, but then what?" Think this is the response god intended from his readers. I wouldn't think so, which is why translators chose to use the common form of Gen 1:1. So while it may not be a false translation it does fail to communicate. And for all it adds to one's understanding of what god did in the beginning, it could be left out.
Actually, "In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth" tells us nothing other than that god prepared the heavens and earth: In the beginning God prepared the heavens and the earth. OR "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
From Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's The Living Torah translation:
In the beginning...
Others translate this, 'In the beginning of God's creation of heaven and earth, the earth was without form and empty...' (Rashi). Still others combine the first three verses: 'In the beginning of God's creation....when the earth was without form and empty....God said, 'Let there be light.' (Bere****h Rabbah)
As I would expect with any such confusing grammatical construction.
Its not just confusing grammatical construction, by the standards of Biblical grammar the Hebrew is simply wrong. All these translators are trying to make sense out of the otherwise garbled Hebrew.
Consider it however you like, but when one gets down to the brass tacks, it is what it is: "The Lord regretted that He had made mankind on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart" In other words, god screwed up. Don't like the phrasing? So be it, but in light of all the superlatives heaped upon god by his devotees I find it no less appropriate .
Its not a question of not liking the phrasing. Its that I already know your choice of translation, so I'm not sure what other gain you are looking for by posting your translation in highlighted - and now in italicized text, followed by some deriding comment about G-d. It makes you sound like a child repeating what he thinks another child doesn't want to hear in order to annoy him. When I read this, it makes me wonder if you've also put your hand on your nose and are wiggling your fingers while sticking your tongue out at me.
Are you claiming that you have the scholarly background to do so?
No, I mean that each individual scholar doesn't agree with himself on how to translate the word. In this verse they translate it as "regret" but in another verse they translate it as "comfort" and a couple of other ways in Gen. 27:42.
Just as we readily recognize the difference in meaning of the word "light" when referring to visual stimulation, and when referring to a matter of weight, I have no doubt that scholars do the same when such words appear in different contexts.
Yes, I agree. However as I pointed out, even a good translation might not include the nuance inherent in the original. That is the point I am making here. I am not disagreeing that the general idea that the verse is trying to convey is something like regret. I'm only pointing out that the nuance of the word allows for a more precise understanding especially when used in reference to G-d. That nuance resolves the OP's question, but doesn't lend itself to easy reading in translation and so is lost.
So what is the nuance you see as qualifying "regret," which I presume disconnects it from an interpretation indicating "mistake." (I'm to tired to go through your previous posts to find it, if youve already posted it)
Maybe another way to look at it is, its not difficult to understand that the authors usage of words like "walking", "finger", "hand" "feet" when referring to G-d are meant to be understood metaphorically. And my position is that when emotional references are used in reference to G-d, they are also meant to be understood metaphorically.
Really! So when Hebrews 13:16 says "And do not neglect doing good and sharing, for with such sacrifices God is pleased." god isn't actually pleased at all?
Or when Proverbs 6:16 says "There are six things which the LORD hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:" god doesn't really hate anything, much less six things?
Or when Psalm 136:26 says "Give thanks to the God of heaven, for his steadfast love endures forever." there's no steadfast love at all?
From Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's The Living Torah translation:
In the beginning...
Others translate this, 'In the beginning of God's creation of heaven and earth, the earth was without form and empty...' (Rashi). Still others combine the first three verses: 'In the beginning of God's creation....when the earth was without form and empty....God said, 'Let there be light.' (Bere****h Rabbah)
So, in as much as you said the YLT "accurately identifies that the grammatical construct of the first word of Genesis should be 'In the beginning of,' do you subscribe to a "In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth" translation, or go you go along with one of the others you cite here?
Its not a question of not liking the phrasing. Its that I already know your choice of translation, so I'm not sure what other gain you are looking for by posting your translation in highlighted - and now in italicized text, followed by some deriding comment about G-d. It makes you sound like a child repeating what he thinks another child doesn't want to hear in order to annoy him. When I read this, it makes me wonder if you've also put your hand on your nose and are wiggling your fingers while sticking your tongue out at me.
I sometimes do highlight text, although not often, to insure my point is not overlooked. As far as I know you could be one of those people who do exactly this, on purpose or not. As for italicizing quoted material, I try to make a habit of doing it in all my posts no matter what the subject or material---I don't always succeed. But that you seem to take it personally---me treating you like a child---is rather thin-skinned and telling. Toughen up dude. Even if I was treating you like a child, and putting my hand on my nose and wiggling my fingers while sticking my tongue out at you, why would you care? Am I really that important to you that such behavior would be disturbing? Really?
Really! So when Hebrews 13:16 says "And do not neglect doing good and sharing, for with such sacrifices God is pleased." god isn't actually pleased at all?
Since the Golden Rule says to do unto others as you would others do unto you that includes every and all lists.
Jesus' illustration about the neighborly good Samaritan is a good example of following the Golden Rule as found at Luke 10:30-37 because he helped that injured man where he could help him.
Besides the guiding Golden Rule mentioned at Matthew 7:12 it is also mentioned at Leviticus 19:18.
I find Jesus even gave us a NEW commandment found at John 13:34-35 which is to have the same self-sacrificing love for others as he had.
Sure, if people were robots without free-will choices then they would complain they had No choices.
By the Genesis account I find Angels do have free-will choices. Some chose to put on materialized bodies before the Flood of Noah's day and help cause violence on Earth. So, Angels are Not forced to love God, just like some people, there are also fallen angels, so to speak, who won't serve God.
You have explain many of your religious beliefs. I, as a non-christian, simply don't have the beliefs you've describing. I do have my own moral system about what is wrong what is good.
You have explain many of your religious beliefs. I, as a non-christian, simply don't have the beliefs you've describing.
I do have my own moral system about what is wrong what is good.
Yes, I do realize people (even world wide) have their own moral system about what is wrong and what is good.
To me, that is because, unless damaged, we all come equipped with an inborn conscience.
A person's conscience can either ' excuse ' actions or ' accuse ' actions according to Romans 2:14-15
Some people's conscience becomes so hardened to the un-feeling point of being calloused as flesh would be that was branded by a hot branding iron - 1 Timothy 4:2. To me this is the beliefs the Bible is describing.
Yes, I do realize people (even world wide) have their own moral system about what is wrong and what is good. To me, that is because, unless damaged, we all come equipped with an inborn conscience.
A person's conscience can either ' excuse ' actions or ' accuse ' actions according to Romans 2:14-15
Some people's conscience becomes so hardened to the un-feeling point of being calloused as flesh would be that was branded by a hot branding iron - 1 Timothy 4:2. To me this is the beliefs the Bible is describing.
I can understand that is what you believe. I will not ask you to provide evidence to support your beliefs if you have no intention to convince me to believe what you believe.
