Modern Skeptic's Bible (MSB) - Genesis Chapter 1

[dybmh]

I think you are right about the point you made earlier, "earthling man" should have been in brackets.

That's progress. I'll wait to reply more so that you have time to read, process, and reply to all I've written so far. It's a lot, Hugh. Your endeavor is NOT easy. It's foolish to underestimate it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... you cannot read or digest more than a sentence at a time

More ad hominem.

Why are you peppering @I Am Hugh with puerile questions about the proper translation of "את"?

 

[dybmh]

Why are you peppering @I Am Hugh with puerile questions about the proper translation of "את"?

Have you read what I've already posted? The answer is there. You'll need to work for it. It's good for you, bro.

 

[dybmh]

More ad hominem.

You're replies to me began with under-handed sneaky insults. Playing the victim card is cowardly and rather pathetic.

 

[I Am Hugh]

Well, there's your problem right there. Jimi was basically from a different planet. If you're trying to compare yourself to Jimi and Eddie, you've got big shoes to fill. You'll need a huge fan base to prove yourself.

I'm not a guitarist, so it isn't an academic or musically technical issue for me. It's the sounds I prefer, not the talent. I think Edward was a more gifted rhythm player than the lead. Not that he was deficient in that capacity, but I prefer Steve Vai. But it's more than I can do to listen to a Vai album, I'm not that into guitar. I'm a bad drummer, sloppy as hell and can hardly manage the interest to keep a prolonged beat. Vocally (before I lost my voice after a mild cold about a decade ago) I was a vocalist on par with Rob Halford, Robert Plant, Steven Tyler, Chris Cornell, Emmylou Harris, Ann Wilson and Paul Rodgers. I could mimic them perfectly, but I can't stand singing in front of an audience.

Are we a little bit off topic? Oh well.

... but you impersonate one with the help of Google translate?

Yeah, and although it was sort of a joke because I've used it in the past with Sanskrit and the like and found it woefully inadequate. I ended up going to reddit to solicit the much-appreciated help of people who know what they were doing. My English Grammar, as I mentioned, is bad, so I use Microsoft Editor. Sometimes . . . sometimes me and that thing go round and round, I can tell you. Like you can see in the beginning of that sentence. It lost that round.

The meaning is not the same, Bro. You're missing some very important details. Right off the bat.

Okay. Good. Show me. In English. i don't mind Hebrew references but if I could do without, I would prefer that for reasons I've already given. It is, figuratively speaking, all Greek to me. As is the Greek, of course. Literally. Heh.

Tbh, no. You never get a second chance to make a first impression. You bricked it. You screwed the pooch when you brought Michael to Proverbs 9 in a prior thread. No. That's a hard no. You don't know what the heck you're talking about. And the translation you're using to produce that wacka-doodle nonsense is OBVIOUSLY flawed. The verb ends in a YUD. It is on-going. Imperfect.

View attachment 94808

Yeah, I don't think I ever did get your objection to that. I don't even recall whether or not I properly addressed it. If you had a case I didn't see it or wasn't interested.

Bro. You're calling it archaic, but you cannot read it. You cannot rationally judge something you cannot read.

Nonsense. Archaic means (of a word or a style of language) no longer in everyday use but sometimes used to impart an old-fashioned flavor. I rationally judge something I can't read as illegible.

The primitive concepts are coming from the religious leaders of your youth. They couldn't read the original language either.

I was an atheist until I was 27. To this day I have no religious leaders. I consult.

The modern rational skeptic is rarely if ever skeptical of themself.

That's for sure.

Why do you think you know what's in the Torah if you cannot read it?

If the "Torah" is translated into English I can read it. If you don't consider the Torah if you consider the Bible not to be representative of the first five books of the Bible direct me to an English translation that differs significantly for my consideration, but other than that, it's one tradition over another. The ideology of modern-day Judaism and Christianity I reject.

I understand that you are exaggerating your competence.

No, I underplay it, I don't take it for granted. I don't consider myself particularly competent in this regard. I'm learning, I'm a student.

And you are assuming you know what the story says because you have a hard time believing:

1) Jews are right. You can't believe it. You've said we're corrupt, practicing some other non-Jewish religion.

Religion, ideology, tradition. Religious Jew, Christian, Democrat, Republican. It's all the same to me. It has nothing to do with whether or not you were born with Jewish ancestry. If you were a descendent of Moses or David it wouldn't make any difference to me either way. If would mean nothing to me as my possible descendance from King Henry means nothing to me. To me there is one race, humans, and one planet, earth. We are all human, all earthlings. I also think people are all idiots. I'm a person.

2) You're wrong. You can't believe it. You've decided that you have this figured out already. You've spent time and effort, and here comes a Jew correcting you showing you that the time you spent was, more or less, a waste of time.

No. In part. If someone comes along and challenges what I believe I get ruffled like most people, because what we believe becomes a part of us. You are right that I have it pretty much figured out, like I said, I could defend it against any traditional interpretation, but you're taking me on some long journey you've spent years on and not really saying anything about what I wrote because you like to preach your own beliefs. I want a simple criticism. Where in what I wrote, in my "commentary" am I wrong. WITHOUT the long series or dissertation on Hebrew. You speak English?

To you I'm a know it all coming along challenging the fastest gun in the west? Bull****. I'm up for discussion and debate but I get bored real fast. I like being challenged, but take it easy. Give me some space to think.

Me? I'm not fluent. But I always go back to the original text, and I know how to find the answers to my own questions from reputable souces.

And I have my sources. I don't care about reputation, often in life I find the more reputable the more corrupt. Top dog is always the most corrupt in any institution.

You can think what you want. But if you cannot read it, then you cannot judge it. That's hear-say. You're opperating off rumors you've assumed are true,

All you have to do then, is make it so I can read it. You can't do that?

Your posts regarding Hebrew are trash. I have more important things to do. I'll point out the faults that occur as they occur in your writing when I read them in sequence. If the faults are excessive of of significant scope, I stop.

Okay. It takes two to tango. It's pretty arrogant of you to think I place any more value on what you say than what you have for what I say. Your efforts are worse than trash to me, at least I can recycle trash.

 

[I Am Hugh]

Read my posts in this thread. Clearly you didn't. I think the problem is, you cannot read or digest more than a sentence at a time. That's why your replies are shallow, superficial, and virtually without any value. Everyone sees it. Many have commented on it.

I've come across a lot of posters on forums like this who fancy themselves as celebrities. I think it's foolish.

 

[I Am Hugh]

That's progress. I'll wait to reply more so that you have time to read, process, and reply to all I've written so far. It's a lot, Hugh. Your endeavor is NOT easy. It's foolish to underestimate it.

I think that what I have to keep in mind is more along the lines of your own exaggerated importance and overconfidence.

 

[I Am Hugh]

I stopped reading here. And I'm not going any further.

Then we're done. Continue with your verbose self-gratification without me as your audience. A pity your ego would prevent you from actually teaching me anything, but that the way it goes sometimes.

 

[I Am Hugh]

You're very-very smart.

No. I don't believe you and I don't think it true. And I don't think the remark is genuine.

You're talented.

Nonsense.

You care. You can do this. I can help.

Not really. No.

 

[I Am Hugh]

That's progress. I'll wait to reply more so that you have time to read, process, and reply to all I've written so far. It's a lot, Hugh. Your endeavor is NOT easy. It's foolish to underestimate it.

Boy, this thread has done little to improve my opinion of the Hebrew scholar, would be an understatement.

Proverbs 18:2 ESV A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.​

 

[GoodAttention]

So far that only means to me, in other words my translation of "accurate" as far as the criticisms so far, is based entirely on religious tradition. It isn't "accurate" because it isn't religious nonsense that other people believe. So, I didn't describe God as an alien, I also didn't use the usual generic term God which only means someone or something venerated. Instead, I actually described the being. You don't think the God in question, Jehovah, is highly intelligent? Psalm 111:10. Extraterrestrial? 1 Kings 8:27.

You said it was accurate, my use of inverted commas was to quote your use of the word.

I provided an example of a target audience that has the potential to agree with your proclaimation of accurate.

Given I come from this audience, I am TELLING you, that you have described God as an alien, ignoring the fact that you use the term extraterrestrial before earth was created.

 

[I Am Hugh]

You said it was accurate, my use of inverted commas was to quote your use of the word.

I provided an example of a target audience that has the potential to agree with your proclaimation of accurate.

Given I come from this audience, I am TELLING you, that you have described God as an alien, ignoring the fact that you use the term extraterrestrial before earth was created.

Then by your own logic how can he not be? That's what I'm TELLING you.

 

[GoodAttention]

Then by your own logic how can he not be? That's what I'm TELLING you.

What do you mean how can he not be?

Finish your question, how can he not be what?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

More ad hominem.

You're replies to me began with under-handed sneaky insults. Playing the victim card is cowardly and rather pathetic.

^ projection

 

[dybmh]

^ projection

I'm not the only one who notices what you do and how you do it.

 

[dybmh]

Boy, this thread has done little to improve my opinion of the Hebrew scholar, would be an understatement.

No problem. I'll go back to ignoring your writing. I doubt anyone will take it seriously without a great deal of help from those of us who know more than you.

I posted a lot of good information in this thread. If you don't find it valuable, I'm sure someone else will.

 

[I Am Hugh]

What do you mean how can he not be?

Finish your question, how can he not be what?

[Sigh] Really? You can't piece it together? What did I say he was? A highly intelligent extraterrestrial being.

How did you interpret that? Alien.

What is highly intelligent? The possession of knowledge and skills to a high degree or level.

What is extraterrestrial? Of or from outside the earth or its atmosphere.

The original Hebrew word was Elohim, always translated, as it should be, God.

What is Elohim? it means God/gods. It's plural, sometimes signifying gods and sometimes a single god or God, being a plural of majesty. For example, it is used at 1 Samuel 5:7 for Dagon, at 1 Kings 11:5 for the goddess Ashtoreth, and at Daniel 1:2 for Marduk, at Psalms 82:1, 6 for the human judges of Israel, quoted by Jesus in application of himself using the Greek word theos at John 10:34, 35, for Moses at Exodus 4:16; 7:1, and the angels at Psalm 8:5. Elohim is a variation of the Hebrew word El, God, literally meaning mighty. Those words preceded by the definite article ha means the God, much like the Arab word Allah (al=the lah=god) and the Hebrew word satan, means adversary, and is applied first to the righteous angel of God at Numbers 22:22 without the definite article, in application to humans at 1 Samuel 29:4; 2 Samuel 19:21, 22; 1 Kings 5:4; 11:14, 23, 25. When it appears with the definite article ha it applies specifically to Satan. The satan, the adversary.

What is God? According to Oxford's Dictionary:
1. In Christianity and other monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. In certain other religions, a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity; an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god; used as a conventional personification of fate.
3. An adored, admired, or influential person; a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god.
4. Informal: the gallery in a theater.

The English word God was used by the pagans before the Christian missionaries reached the English-speaking people. That word means to poor/libate. English is a Germanic language, the Proto-Germanic words from which the Old English word God comes was a pagan word when the Christian missionaries came from Rome to England somewhere in the 6th and 7th century. Because those Proto-Germanic words were used in religious pagan language to poor, libate, invoke, sacrifice, high, heaven, etc. Things they did in association with the mighty/venerated. Gods. So, that was a suitable word in English for the Latin word deus the Roman Christian missionaries probably used meaning the same thing.

A god is anything or anyone venerated as mightier than the person doing the veneration and so attributing might.

You either object to the removal of the word that appears there, Hebrew Elohim, English God or you object to the removal of your personal God concept.

The atheists, and the skeptics are put off by the word God, because to them they see it as all sorts of ugliness, usually perpetrated by believers or having to do with any gods or the god concept in general which they see as fantasy, delusion, even though a god can be someone or anything, the believer and unbeliever alike associate the word with a concept they either believe or not.

It's misleading because of preconceived biases of both believer and unbeliever.

That's why I used a description instead of the word. Saying God created the heavens and earth is true, but it's like describing a friend as a man or woman instead of describing who or what they are aside from that. In the case of the unbeliever, it's like describing someone as a man to another person who hates men. I wanted to try and remove the possible preconceived biases because I read this post.

I posited a possibility knowing it would probably fail because nothing really matters when preconceived biases are involved. All the facts in the world won't change things with those involved. With believers and unbelievers if they use only preconceived biases.

 

[dybmh]

What is extraterrestrial

Generally a physical being which is not at all like humans. And that will become a problem as you continue in the story because God is described as a formless being sharing our human emotions and relating to us. Also there's Gen 1:27 to contend with.

---

I find this to be extremely distracting. What are you trying to say by putting this on all your messages as your signature? You're strong and defiant while under attack?

I am not attacking you. Jay wants to demonize me because I defeat his anti-religious and political arguments on here regularly. He's acting like a politician on a smear campaign. And If I recall his career is in politics. So, this is what he likes to do. Smear. He encouraged you to feel attacked, but, you're not. Jay started out liking my posts in this thread. But then he realized that his own beloved translations are skipping words too, and re-writing the Torah in the same way as you are. So he flipped back into his comfort zone, smearing and slinging mud.

If you like Trump? Then, I think, you really shouldn't listen to Jay. Regardless of politics, people like Trump because he doesn't pull his punches and says it like it is. Jay behaves completely opposite to that. The person in this thread who is telling it like it is, is me. You don't like it? I say it anyway... If you respect that? Hopefully you'll respect me. That's what I'm doing.

 

[I Am Hugh]

No problem. I'll go back to ignoring your writing.

Your response is arrogant, deceptive and hypocritical. You've never ignored my writing; you were all over it like ugly on an ape. 90% of my notifications are due to this fact. Ironically one of your first posts accused me of ignoring you and complained that people do that here as if that were beneath you. This reflects upon you poorly.

I doubt anyone will take it seriously without a great deal of help from those of us who know more than you.

Do you honestly think you can say something like that in a public forum without people not even bothering to take the time express their contempt for such a statement? Or at least see it as a common illusion of grandeur?

Common, predictable, boring, stupid response. Are you going to finish by saying Good day, sir or Have a nice day, or Goodby?

I posted a lot of good information in this thread. If you don't find it valuable, I'm sure someone else will.

I very seriously doubt that will happen outside of your mind. In fact, even if the information was good, they wouldn't find it as such. What you write is for yourself and you alone. You entertain yourself. The only way you can possibly hold the attention of anyone for very long is through contention. Which is why you loath your audience and you loath yourself. When all you wanted was some attention.

I know. I used to be like that.

You messed up. My advice is that if you want more than that. To learn and teach for example, humble yourself before God and man. If what you want to achieve is more than what you have. I think you could do it. I hope you do. It feels really good to let that **** go.

 

[dybmh]

You've never ignored my writing