The Religion Discussion

[Habit7]

So you are disagreeing with Duane and saying humans (Homo sapiens) have always been on the top of the food chain.



Why was that so hard to say before? Why is it when theists in the thread say something scientifically erroneous, everyone rushes to rake them over the coals. But when an agnostic or someone in you camp says an error you all whistle dixie as I try to point it out?

If someone in this thread proclaims themself to be a Christian and speaks error I will call them out, and I have. I will also expect the same from those who affirm the Bible also.

[maj. tom]

"Man has taken dominance through technology. Before man developed agriculture or even before he was a hunter gatherer, he was just as vulnerable as any other animal in the food chain. Put a man on the plains of Africa in the wild with nothing but his body and he won't last very long. Is that what you consider to be dominion?"

is what Duane said.



He never said anything about top of the food chain. And you are twisting this entire thing from what you quoted about dominion in the Bible to this. He said that if you are walking on the plains of Africa and a lion wants to eat you, you don't have the adaptations of winning that battle. But humans have intelligence which allows us to make tools (technology) and kill the lion.

I don't think you understand what top of the food chain means. If you try to wrestle a tiger you know you are going to get eaten. That doesn't mean that the tiger is at the top of the food chain. Nor does it mean that we eat tigers. Turn food chain into food pyramid. Turn each level to a certain amount of energy. As you go up the pyramid the number of animals get smaller but the energy of each level increases. At the top is man.

Man uses all the resources of all the animals and plants below him in that pyramid and collectively uses the most energy. We are at the top of the food pyramid and we are the dominant animals on this planet. A tiger is at the top of its food pyramid in that ecosystem but you don't see a tiger doing anything else but eating and sleeping do you? It has developed muscles and teeth that we can't compete with. An elephant is larger and uses much more energy than a tiger, but it's not at the top of the food pyramid is it? Tiger eats elephant when it has to. An elephant can't eat tiger at all. But if man were in that ecosystem then you would see man being at the top because eventually he will use tools to kill the tiger.


I just told you to get that Standard 4 food chain notion out of your head. The food chain is about the transfer of energy within an ecosystem. By your logic, we can't fight a crocodile and win. So the crocodile is on top of us?

Take off your "palaeontology cap" please.

[Habit7]

But the discussion moved on from there:

But if man was a hunter/gatherer how could he just as vulnerable as other animal in the food chain? Without having to dive back into my std 4 science textbook, if man is the hunter, he is the dominant one in the food chain, no so?

It is possible to be a hunter and not be at the very top of the food chain.

Are we here really to discuss truth or just to make the other side look bad?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ are you feeling bad?

Is there something false about the statement that a hunter is not necessarily at the top of the food chain?

[Habit7]

The hunter reference in the statement is a human, the discussion has always been about a human. More times than not, "hunter" is a person as compared to the more suitable term for an animal: predator.

Duane I think if you start backpedaling any more you will start to reverse you post count.

[nareshseep]

hmm a human will kill a lion with there bare hands .... hmm interesting.... yeah we see this happenning alot in the wild

[rocknrolla]

man kill lion with his bare hands


happens all the time LOL

[nareshseep]

God vs Satan / Heaven vs Hell basically boils down to this :-

[nareshseep]

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

The hunter reference in the statement is a human, the discussion has always been about a human. More times than not, "hunter" is a person as compared to the more suitable term for an animal: predator.

you are so accustomed to making things mean what you want it to mean that you do it everywhere!

where did I backpedal?

[Habit7]

where did I backpedal?

search.php?author_id=5&sr=posts

[AdamB]

Habit vs Duane
#spinning wars.

[Habit7]

It have no war going on here, it just a discussion of two opposing views.

But speaking of war, tell what you think is a legitimate jihad struggle for you as a Muslim today.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ agreed - no war - just a discussion

but I'd like to know Habit7's views on the Dragon and Unicorn displays at the Christian Creation Museum in the US. I know he posted in support of Dr. Jason Lisle who is a lead "creation scientist" at the Creation Museum.

Where there dragons and unicorns on Noah's Ark?

[rocknrolla]

dragons.. a symbol of ultimate spirituality..

demonized in the western world.. but revered in the east

[Habit7]

but I'd like to know Habit7's views on the Dragon and Unicorn displays at the Christian Creation Museum in the US. I know he posted in support of Dr. Jason Lisle who is a lead "creation scientist" at the Creation Museum.

Where there dragons and unicorns on Noah's Ark?

I haven't been the Creation Museum so I dont think I can make a fully informed comment on it. I hope to when next I am in New England and I can find time to see it. When last I was in New York I went to American Museum of Natural History, a tremendous exhibit, I hope the Creation Museum could at least match or surpass the quality of presentation I saw there.

No, I dont believe that there were dragons and unicorns on Noah's Ark, if we were thinking of dragons and unicorns with our 21st century English understanding. But I believe there were dragons and unicorns on Noah's Ark if I think of them with pre-15th century BC Hebrew understanding also considering the Hebrews limited taxonomic classifications when compared to ours today.

[Habit7]

I see that you have somewhat of a fixation with mentioning Dr. Lisle while erroneously saying that in your view, science doesnt need a figurehead. I brought up Dr Lisle when you asked for some intellectually accurate data supporting creationism. Apparently his Phd in Astrophysics did meet the standard of your intense hours of reading Wikipedia in which you questioned his informed difference of opinion with theories you equate to fact.

But since you find it suitable to link me to a guy who like me, agrees with creationism, can I do the same with you? There is a guy called Charles Darwin, who like you agrees with evolution, who wrote a book called The Descent of Man, where he proposed that caucasians were more evolved other ethnicities. Do you think he was wrong?

If you don't know who Charles Darwin is, you might know him from his bestseller:
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
or by its shorter title On the Origin of Species

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

but I'd like to know Habit7's views on the Dragon and Unicorn displays at the Christian Creation Museum in the US. I know he posted in support of Dr. Jason Lisle who is a lead "creation scientist" at the Creation Museum.

Where there dragons and unicorns on Noah's Ark?

I haven't been the Creation Museum so I dont think I can make a fully informed comment on it. I hope to when next I am in New England and I can find time to see it. When last I was in New York I went to American Museum of Natural History, a tremendous exhibit, I hope the Creation Museum could at least match or surpass the quality of presentation I saw there.

No, I dont believe that there were dragons and unicorns on Noah's Ark, if we were thinking of dragons and unicorns with our 21st century English understanding. But I believe there were dragons and unicorns on Noah's Ark if I think of them with pre-15th century BC Hebrew understanding also considering the Hebrews limited taxonomic classifications when compared to ours today.

so what is a dragon or unicorn when using the Hebrews limited taxonomic classifications.

What else in the bible was affected by the limits of the Hebrews and other writers of the Bible?

so you are saying given the limits of the knowledge or understanding of the writers of the bible, content that is written should not be taken literally or may be misleading? i.e. dragons and unicorns

Job 39:9-12
King James Version (KJV)
9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

what animal, in 21st century English understanding, was Job referring to here?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

I see that you have somewhat of a fixation with mentioning Dr. Lisle while erroneously saying that in your view, science doesnt need a figurehead. I brought up Dr Lisle when you asked for some intellectually accurate data supporting creationism. Apparently his Phd in Astrophysics did meet the standard of your intense hours of reading Wikipedia in which you questioned his informed difference of opinion with theories you equate to fact.

But since you find it suitable to link me to a guy who like me, agrees with creationism, can I do the same with you? There is a guy called Charles Darwin, who like you agrees with evolution, who wrote a book called The Descent of Man, where he proposed that caucasians were more evolved other ethnicities. Do you think he was wrong?

If you don't know who Charles Darwin is, you might know him from his bestseller:
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
or by its shorter title On the Origin of Species

I actually never heard of Dr Lisle until you posted about him and your support for his views.

I do not think that caucasians ARE more evolved other ethnicities. Perhaps just like your Hebrews, this was the understanding, given the social structure, in 19th Century Europe.

Darwin made that comment as part of his understanding, I guess just as Dr. Lisle says that T-Rex was a herbivore and ate plants. Clearly misjudgments on both parts.
But the quote I took from Lisle was regarding his holistic approach to research when he said we should ignore scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible and instead go with what the Bible says.
That is Lisle's entire approach vs a comment from Drawin.

[Habit7]

but I'd like to know Habit7's views on the Dragon and Unicorn displays at the Christian Creation Museum in the US. I know he posted in support of Dr. Jason Lisle who is a lead "creation scientist" at the Creation Museum.

Where there dragons and unicorns on Noah's Ark?

I haven't been the Creation Museum so I dont think I can make a fully informed comment on it. I hope to when next I am in New England and I can find time to see it. When last I was in New York I went to American Museum of Natural History, a tremendous exhibit, I hope the Creation Museum could at least match or surpass the quality of presentation I saw there.

No, I dont believe that there were dragons and unicorns on Noah's Ark, if we were thinking of dragons and unicorns with our 21st century English understanding. But I believe there were dragons and unicorns on Noah's Ark if I think of them with pre-15th century BC Hebrew understanding also considering the Hebrews limited taxonomic classifications when compared to ours today.

so what is a dragon or unicorn when using the Hebrews limited taxonomic classifications.

What else in the bible was affected by the limits of the Hebrews and other writers of the Bible?

so you are saying given the limits of the knowledge or understanding of the writers of the bible, content that is written should not be taken literally or may be misleading? i.e. dragons and unicorns

Job 39:9-12
King James Version (KJV)
9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

what animal, in 21st century English understanding, was Job referring to here?

Firstly word "dragon" appears only in our translations of the Book of Revelations which was in Greek. Dragon is only referenced for Satan, it is not teaching that a this mythical figure lived in the past.

Secondly, Hebrew doesnt limit anything in the Bible, in fact it could be argued that Hebrew is more complex than our own English. What I was referring to was their taxonomy, which even for us in English is limited. For the most specific taxonomy we all go to Latin to define animals with their genus and specie.

The Hebrew word there in Job is רְאֵם reym. When the Hebrews translated the Old Testament into Greek, the Septuagint, the Greek word they used was μονόκερως monokeros which literally means "one horn." This is why the King James Version translates רְאֵם reym as unicorn. However we understand רְאֵם reym can either be referring to the Asian rhino, Rhinoceros unicornis or an extinct auerochs. Hence the reason why more modern and better translations than the KJV (like the ones I quote) use the term "wild ox" rather than unicorn, a significance for us contemporaries as a mythical one horned horse which can only be traced back to recent history.

[Habit7]

I do not think that caucasians ARE more evolved other ethnicities. Perhaps just like your Hebrews, this was the understanding, given the social structure, in 19th Century Europe.

No, this was his conclusion not by culture, but it was grounded in his objective and fact based research in which he proposed evolution also. Do I need to repost his writing in which you first said you didn't know they even existed?

For Darwin more advanced evolution within the human race was contiguous with what he saw within the animal kingdom. Tell me how could he draw that correct conclusion from his theory when he speaks about animals, but is wrong when he refers directly to humans?

Darwin made that comment as part of his understanding, I guess just as Dr. Lisle says that T-Rex was a herbivore and ate plants. Clearly misjudgments on both parts.
But the quote I took from Lisle was regarding his holistic approach to research when he said we should ignore scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible and instead go with what the Bible says.
That is Lisle's entire approach vs a comment from Drawin.

Did Dr. Lisle say that? Or would Dr Lisle agree that the T-Rex spent the vast majority of existence on the earth as carnivores?
And how is Dr. Lisle bias any more different than yours when you ask for proof that man coexisted with dinosaurs and I referenced dinosaur lagerstatten in which we have bone and tissue of dinosaurs that existed no less than 66 million years ago. And you amount that to just the soil type and some nondescript circumstance in which the fossils were preserved. When we have mummies that were entombed in Egypt (one of the best environments in the world for preservation), in near anaerobic conditions, with preservatives and embalming, for a few thousand years, that struggle to maintain that level of preservation we see in lagerstatten. Arent you also biased of your theory despite the contrary facts?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ so the unicorn in the bible is a rhinoceros. Why not say rhinoceros?

There is a dragon display at the creation museum where Lisle works; they claim this animal existed.

There is no evidence that dinosaurs lived at the same time as Homo sapiens. There is however extensive scientific evidence that they existed millions of years apart.

[Habit7]

^ so the unicorn in the bible is a rhinoceros. Why not say rhinoceros?

You are the one that choose a translation from the 17th century, I quote from New American Standard Bible (NASB) one of the most accurate word to word English translation, or the English Standard Version (ESV) one of the most accurate phase to phase English translation.

There is a dragon display at the creation museum where Lisle works; they claim this animal existed.

Well so far that is your account, I cannot comment on something I am not informed about.

There is no evidence that dinosaurs lived at the same time as Homo sapiens. There is however extensive scientific evidence that they existed millions of years apart.

Well I just gave you that evidence and are you glossing over it and denying it existance.



We have 100+ pgs of this back and forth, and it is time to put our views to the logical test. If I am continually demonstrating the logical consistency of my view however your view has:
1] gaping logical consistencies
2] unfactual information (confirmed by your own camp)
3] a misrepresentation and/or denial of the existence of the refutations of view
then it is apparent that view is not based on a sound argument but your innate feeling that you are right.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ I think you are confusing me with you.
What gaping logical inconsistencies? You are the one who is saying the earth is ~6000 years old despite vast amounts of scientific evidence showing that it is billions of years old.
No amount of big words and pseudo-science can help your argument there.

What you are giving is not evidence. Rather, it is a biased interpretation of scientific evidence where the biasness stems from a preconception that the Bible is absolutely right despite whatever scientific evidence is found to contradict it. That is a logical flaw creating unfactual information which is a misrepresentation and/or denial of the existence of refutations and empirical evidence. It is therefore apparent that your view is not based on a sound argument but your innate feeling that you are right.

Now back to the unicorns:

Job 39:9-12
King James Version (KJV)
9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

"The King James Version (KJV), commonly known as the Authorized Version (AV) or King James Bible (KJB), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England begun in 1604 and completed in 1611."

Job 39:9-12
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
9 “Will the wild ox consent to serve you,
Or will he spend the night at your manger?
10 “Can you bind the wild ox in a furrow with [a]ropes,
Or will he harrow the valleys after you?

"The New American Standard Bible (NASB), also informally called the New American Standard Version (NASV: distinguished in its 1995 update as the NASU) is an English translation of the Bible. The New Testament was first published in 1963. The complete Bible was published in 1971. The most recent edition of the NASB text was published in 1995. Copyright and trademark to the NASB text are owned by the Lockman Foundation."

So up until 1971 everyone thought Job was talking about unicorns?

The Hebrew word there in Job is רְאֵם reym. When the Hebrews translated the Old Testament into Greek, the Septuagint, the Greek word they used was μονόκερως monokeros which literally means "one horn." This is why the King James Version translates רְאֵם reym as unicorn. However we understand רְאֵם reym can either be referring to the Asian rhino, Rhinoceros unicornis or an extinct auerochs. Hence the reason why more modern and better translations than the KJV (like the ones I quote) use the term "wild ox" rather than unicorn, a significance for us contemporaries as a mythical one horned horse which can only be traced back to recent history.

how can "one horn" translate into aueroch which has two large horns?

why not use rhinoceros? since as you say the

New American Standard Bible (NASB) one of the most accurate word to word English translation

but I guess reshaping the puzzle piece so that it fits the space is what is going on here

reminds me of this

[Habit7]

Duane you did it again.

רְאֵם reym was translated "one horn" in the Septuagint, where the KJV follows not the original text but its translation. However is best understood רְאֵם reym to be an animal with one horn such the asian rhino or one that appears to have one horn in profile like the auerochs. Please remember, this Book of Job (believed to be the oldest in the Bible) preceded several hundreds of years before concept of the mythical unicorn began. There is no link between the two. It is like saying because a couple got married on Tuesday 11 Sept 1979, they did it in support of Bin Laden.


But before we go any further

I do not think that caucasians ARE more evolved other ethnicities. Perhaps just like your Hebrews, this was the understanding, given the social structure, in 19th Century Europe.

No, this was his conclusion not by culture, but it was grounded in his objective and fact based research in which he proposed evolution also. Do I need to repost his writing in which you first said you didn't know they even existed?

For Darwin more advanced evolution within the human race was contiguous with what he saw within the animal kingdom. Tell me how could he draw that correct conclusion from his theory when he speaks about animals, but is wrong when he refers directly to humans?

are you going to address this or do you want to flog that dead unicorn about unicorns?

[nareshseep]

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

רְאֵם reym was translated "one horn" in the Septuagint, where the KJV follows not the original text but its translation. However is best understood רְאֵם reym to be an animal with one horn such the asian rhino or one that appears to have one horn in profile like the auerochs.

Oh in PROFILE!

First you said

The Hebrew word there in Job is רְאֵם reym. When the Hebrews translated the Old Testament into Greek, the Septuagint, the Greek word they used was μονόκερως monokeros which literally means "one horn." This is why the King James Version translates רְאֵם reym as unicorn. However we understand רְאֵם reym can either be referring to the Asian rhino, Rhinoceros unicornis or an extinct auerochs.

seems you did it again!

Please remember, this Book of Job (believed to be the oldest in the Bible) preceded several hundreds of years before concept of the mythical unicorn began. There is no link between the two.

there are artwork of animals that looks like what we refer to as unicorns found in the indus valley dating to 2500BC

My point is that you take meanings, reshape and mold them to suit your own beliefs, even in your own text. Is it that the Bible was only really perfected in what it really means in 1995 with the current version of the New American Version and it was wrong and misleading all the time before?

But before we go any further

I do not think that caucasians ARE more evolved other ethnicities. Perhaps just like your Hebrews, this was the understanding, given the social structure, in 19th Century Europe.

No, this was his conclusion not by culture, but it was grounded in his objective and fact based research in which he proposed evolution also. Do I need to repost his writing in which you first said you didn't know they even existed?

For Darwin more advanced evolution within the human race was contiguous with what he saw within the animal kingdom. Tell me how could he draw that correct conclusion from his theory when he speaks about animals, but is wrong when he refers directly to humans?

are you going to address this

Humans belong to the genus "Homo" of which we are Homo Sapiens. Races are distinct populations within the same species and does not apply to genetic differences but phenotype. We see some races may tend to have better athletes while others may tend to have better academics. There is not necessarily a marker for which human race is more evolved as there is success and failure in all.

The issue here may be that you have a preconception that science books are absolute in their claims and knowledge because that is what you apply to the Bible. However this is not the case in science. Darwin could have very well made errant claims but the basis of his work fostered major research in evolutionary biology. Modern evolutionary biology only got going in the 1940s with research in adaptation and speciation that carries on today.

or do you want to flog that dead unicorn about unicorns?

I simply asked about unicorns since I saw it in the KJV Bible (which you now say you believe is not the right version) and saw that the Creation Museum had a display on dragons as well.

[rocknrolla]

without further adieu @marlener

and now that it is "Later"


http://www.yashanet.com/studies/judaism101/sidebars/ohr.htm

There are a number of people who believe that before Adam and Chava (Eve) sinned, they had bodies of light or bodies clothed with light, and that as a result of their sin, they lost their body/clothing of light. When examining the Hebrew language, this is not hard to see.

The Hebrew word for "Light" is "OR" (variant: 'or), spelled "aleph vav resh" - rut
(Remember, Hebrew is written from right to left)
The Hebrew word for "Skin" is also "OR" (variant: 'or), but is spelled "ayin vav resh" - rug

The concept of man having a body clothed with light is not unfamiliar within Judaism as we can see in the passages of the Midrash Rabbah and Zohar shown below. The most pertinent portions are highlighted in bold except in the Midrash passage which is entirely about this subject.

here we see the issue at hand right away. the hebrew writing of skin and light is the same. here are some other similarities:


http://ancient-hebrew.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=bible&action=display&thread=1030

05782. `uwr, oor; ayin vav resh;
a primitive root (rather identical with 5783 through the idea of opening the eyes); to wake (literally or figuratively):--(a- )wake(-n, up), lift up (self), X master, raise (up), stir up (self).

See Hebrew 05783 (`uwr) ayin vav resh;
a primitive root; to (be) bare:--be made naked.
Hab 3:9 only use;

05785. `owr, ore; ayin vav resh;
from 5783; skin (as naked); by implication, hide, leather:--hide, leather, skin.

See Hebrew 05783 (`uwr)

0216. 'owr, ore; aleph vav resh
from 215; illumination or (concrete) luminary (in every sense, including lightning, happiness, etc.):--bright, clear, + day, light (-ning), morning, sun.

See Hebrew 0215 ('owr) aleph vav resh;
a primitive root; to be (causative, make) luminous (literally and metaphorically):--X break of day, glorious, kindle, (be, en-, give, show) light (-en, -ened), set on fire, shine.

The phonetic similarity of the root of these words is striking. Even with the aleph/ayin difference, the pronunciation is almost indistinguishable.

Read more: http://ancient-hebrew.proboards.com/ind ... z2VjNmHyRH

the final statement also confirms that they are pronounced indistinguishably the same. and this is where our problem begins.

http://www.yashanet.com/studies/judaism101/sidebars/ohr.htm

2)
Two Other Interesting Characteristics about Hebrew

1) Most people are aware that each Hebrew character has a numerical value. Thus, Aleph (t) = 1, Bet (c) = 2, etc. up to Tav (,) = 400 (1-9, 10-90, 100-400). Each letter can be combined together with other letters to represent a larger number (i.e. Mem + Gimel dn together equal 43, 40 + 3)

What is little known about Hebrew is that the ancient form of each letter represented a pictograph, or word picture. So, for example, Aleph represents an ox or bull, Bet represents a house, etc. More information about this can be obtained from two sources: "The Hebrew Letters - Channels of Creative Consciousness" by Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh 1 and "Hebrew Word Pictures" by Frank T. Seekins.

we see now that ancient hebrew also had a pictoral aspect to each letter.. in addition to a number in reference to each hebrew character. do u think one english character or even word can compensate for this "loss in translation"?

you may not follow the seemingly mathematical aspersions cast in the quoted analysis. but this is one method of analysing the Jewish scriptures in which it is believed the Torah is a mathematically precise set of writings. this is a great part of the qabbalah and seems to bring forth many revelations altho the reality of some of those revelations are unconfirmable.

Now, here is where it gets even more interesting. The only difference between the Hebrew words for light and skin is one letter: Aleph (t) for light and Ayin (g) for skin. Numerically, Aleph = 1 and Ayin = 70. The difference between them is 69, represented by the Hebrew letters Samech (x) and Tet (y) or yx. The pictograph of Samech is a prop, meaning, to support. The pictograph of Tet is a snake. Putting the two together, yx means, to support the snake! In other words, by supporting the snake (supporting or going along with the snake's arguments/ways) Adam and Chava (Eve) lost their skins of light and had to be given skins of flesh. And so it is that whenever we support or go along with the snake's arguments/ways we lose some of God's radiance in our lives and become more animalistic and debase in our nature.

But wait, there's more! As mentioned earlier, the letter Aleph represents an ox or bull, and means strength, leader, or first. The letter Ayin is represented by an EYE and means to see, know or experience! Thus, when Adam and Chava (the first people on Earth) ate the forbidden fruit their eyes were opened and they began to know and experience good and evil.

We see here now that even the hebrew translation of skin, carries with it a pictoral representation of an 'eye'. which is a direct reference to sight or vision as it pertains to 'light'. spiritual or supernal light. this was lost in the confusion of the other scribes who did not see 'light'

Midrash Rabbah - Genesis XX:12

12. AND THE LORD GOD MADE FOR ADAM AND HIS WIFE GARMENTS OF SKIN (‘OR), AND CLOTHED THEM (III, 21). In R. Meir's Torah it was found written, ‘Garments of light (or)

we do not have to give credence to the author of the page if we do not want to but his denominations continue down the page if u would like to read more.

since we've got the facts related to translation aspect as it relates to hebrew and ancient hebrew being translated into english..let us look further at the origins of light and flesh:


http://www.templeinstitute.org/101-The-Return-of-Prophecy.pdf

Rabbi Yossi said… It is written, “Elokim said: ‘Let there be light’ and there was light.
Elokim saw the light—that it was good—and Elokim made a division [separated] between
the light and the darkness” (Genesis 1:3-4). This refers to the first light that the Holy One
created. It is called the [b]light of the eye [the light of consciousness]. It is the light that
the Holy One showed Adam, with which Adam was able to see from one end of
the universe to the other.[/b] It is the light that He showed David, concerning which
David praised Him saying, “How great is the good [i.e., the light] that You have hidden away for those who revere You...” (Psalm 31:20)

What was this light that Adam saw? What is God’s light? We can best answer this by calling
it a mental or spiritual light. It was the primordial light of God’s presence permeating all
worlds and everything in them. With this mental light Adam could close his eyes and know
God.

direct reference to meditation^

The source for all these statements is the Zohar:2
Come see. When Adam was in the Garden of Eden, he was dressed in spiritual garments
[i.e., his body was made] of supernal light. Once he was expelled from the garden,
however, he required garments more fitting for this world. It is thus written, “God made
garments of רֹעו for Adam and his wife, and He clothed them” (Genesis 3:21).
Prior to this, they were clothed in garments [i.e., their bodies were made] of רֹאו, the light
of that supernal radiance with which he perceived all the spiritual worlds when he was in
the Garden of Eden.

For it is known that the light of the Garden of Eden [did not come from the sun; rather, it]
came from the supernal radiance. For this reason, when the Holy One placed Adam in the
garden, He clothed him in garments [i.e., gave him a body] of light appropriate for that
place. Without such garments he could not have existed there.

a point i made before. man could not be in the presence of God in the flesh. thus it is proposed that even the earth was made out for radiated supernal light and that it is after the fall this light was lost both by adam and the earth.

http://www.bje.org.au/learning/judaism/ethics/bioethics/body.html

In the Jewish tradition there is no absolute division between material and spiritual, body and soul. According to the Hebrew Bible, the human body expresses divine reality and is a key to divine knowledge. As the Bible states, “From my flesh, I will perceive God.” (Job 19):

Before his expulsion from Eden, Adam’s body shone like the sun and was capable of living forever. Only as a result of eating from the Tree of Knowledge did God “place His hand on man and shrink him”. This changed to skin the body of light which en-clothed him, making it subject to death. One of the goals of Jewish spirituality is to reverse this process: to perfect the body and make it shine.

as you can see this is nothing strange to judaism. but this analysis could not be complete without an analysis of the translator. The scribe who actually penned these words known as R. Meir:

http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/48951486.html

In the aftermath of man's sin in Eden, Adam and Eve find themselves exposed, vulnerable, humiliated - naked.
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew2 that they were naked.3
In a feeble attempt to cover themselves they take fig leaves and fashion a primitive covering.
...and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons [loincloths?]. (Genesis 3:7)

Adam and Even had previously been witnessing the world thru the spiritual eye, before their regular eyes were opened to witness the world of flesh. u can say their frequency of vision was lowered as they became blind in one eye. the most important one. where light had shone brightly before was no more.

on partaking of the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve succumbed to their animal instincts, acting with no regard for their spiritual identity and seeking only immediate gratification. The spiritual consequences follow immediately: God clothes them in animal skins or leather. A metamorphosis has taken place. Their new clothing reflects their diminished status.
What was the nature of this leather clothing?6 Various traditions suggest different materials.

The Midrash reports that the clothes of Adam were made of a completely different material:
In R. Meir's Torah it was found written, 'Garments of light (ohr): this refers to Adam's garments, which were like a torch [shedding radiance], broad at the bottom and narrow at the top.
This comment is curious. The Torah text reads 'OR - skin or leather. This Midrash relates a tradition or commentary Rabbi Meir recorded in the margin9 that rendered the word OHR - light. Why would God make for them clothing of light?

yes.. why would Meir say clothing of light? let's take a look..

we've seen the arguments towards justifying light. let us now look at the the scribe in question.

Rabbi Meir made a living as a scribe. He understood the importance of every letter. He knew that leaving out a single letter could have dire consequences. The thought of changing a word probably never crossed his mind, yet he did write comments in the margins, indicating deeper levels of understanding and meaning. His colleagues, however, did not always understand him.

R. Aha b. Hanina said: It is revealed and known before Him Who spoke and the world came into existence,18 that in the generation of R. Meir there was none equal to him; then why was not the halachah fixed in agreement with his views? Because his colleagues could not fathom the depths of his mind, for he would declare the ritually unclean to be clean and supply plausible proof, and the ritually clean to be unclean and also supply plausible proof.

we already begin to see that Meir was an extraodinary individual among the scribes.

Perhaps a passage in the Talmud providing some biographical information about Rabbi Meir can shed some light on these comments.
Did not Rav Judah in fact state in the name of Samuel who had it from R. Meir: When I was studying under R. Akiva I used to put vitriol into my ink and he told me nothing [against it], but when I subsequently came to R. Yishmael the latter said to me, 'My son, what is your occupation?' I told him, 'I am a scribe', and he said to me, 'Be meticulous in your work, for your occupation is a sacred one; should you perchance omit or add one single letter, you would thereby destroy all the universe.'

One taught: His name was not R. Meir but R. Nehorai. Then why was he called 'R. Meir'? Because he enlightened the Sages in the halachah. His name in fact was not even Nehorai but R. Nehemiah or, as others say: R. Eleazar b. Arak. Then why was he called 'Nehorai'? Because he enlightened the Sages in the halachah.

we see indication that Meir ascended thru the ranks among his peers.

Rebbi19 declared: The only reason why I am keener than my colleagues is that I saw the back20 of R. Meir, but had I had a front view of him I would have been keener still, for it is written in Scripture: "Thine eyes shall see thy teacher."

We learn several things from this passage. Rabbi Meir was unparalleled in his generation. Despite this, the law was not established in his opinion, because his colleagues did not understand his dazzling brilliance. We also learn that his name "Meir" means light.21
Meir, who was full of light, sees in our passage in Bereishit "light" instead of "skin", and in the second instance, instead of "good", sees "death". His vocation may have been more than incidental in leading up to the brilliant but radical insights he had to the Torah and halachah.

i propose, that not only was Meir the most meticulous of the scribes.. but his sincerity and devotion awarded him true direction by the spirit to see truth.. and that he most likely if not during his time as a scribe.. did at some point in his life attain samadhi. meaning he may have been the only enlightened scribe to penn the translation.

you can read more in the link above. there is also more on Rabbi Meir here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi_Meir

taking the translation from Meir would be akin to getting the news from the horse's mouth as is dialogue with any enlightened man. the mystery revealed is universal and a common denominator among attainers.

i will now close on this topic of translation with a comparison as seen in the first link of the writings of the other scribes...

In R. Meir's Torah it was found written, ‘Garments of light (or) ‘2: this refers to Adam's garments, which were like a torch [shedding radiance], broad at the bottom and narrow at the top.

Isaac the Elder said: They were as smooth as a finger-nail and as beautiful as a jewel.

R.Johanan said: They were like the fine linen garments which come from Bethshean,3 GARMENTS OF SKIN meaning those that are nearest to the skin.

R. Eleazar said: They were of goats’ skin. R. Joshua said: Of hares’ skin.

R. Jose b. R. Hanina said: It was a garment made of skin with its wool.

Resh Lakish said: It was of Circassian wool, and these were used [later] by first-born children.4

R. Samuel b. Nahman said: [They were made from] the wool of camels and the wool of hares, GARMENTS OF SKIN meaning those which are produced from the skin.

we can easily see why 'skin' is in our christian bible and why 'soil' is interpreted to mean standard soil/mud of this current earth. the introduction of our original consciousness form in the presence of the creator is completely stolen by the poor translation of One Word by unenlightened scribes. but even with all this, the information still holds a deeper symbolic meaning in this entire story of genesis.

i will now end with a further analysis of Jewish understanding in the scrutinizing on the information on Hannukah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanukkah

http://www.puretorah.com/resources/Significance%20of%20Channukah.pdf

now what is all this talk about light? why is light so significant? here we have Jewish festival of Lights.. and also the Hindu festival of lights known as Divali. what is these religions obsession with light??

well this could not be more clear to my eyes and i expect it will serve as a revelation to some at least:

In the duration of Chanukah we light 36 candles (excluding the shamash). The
deep reason for this is rooted in Bereishit and the root of creation. We know that when
Hashem created the world and said on the first day "let there be light" that this light was
not referring to the light from the sun. This is for the simple fact that the sun and moon
were not created until the fourth day. The commentaries derive from here that this special
light was a supernal light which Adam lost after he sinned

The original light did not only reveal things physically, rather it revealed theessence and the source of everything

A Deeper Look
The kabbalists say that the candles contain within them all the mysteries of the
world. In fact they say that by looking at the Hanukah lights one can transform
him/herself and understand the deepest secrets of the world. While we are certainly not
on the level to understand these things lets try to touch the surface and perhaps get an
idea of how many deep ideas are behind the simple candles that we light.

Another lesson we can learn from the lights of Hanukah relates to the make-up of
white light.When all the colors of light are mixed they turn the color white which
represents purity and holiness while when all colors of paint are mixed they turn the color
black which does not represent a desirable trait.

This here in jewish analysis.. Unknown to their scholars is a direct reference to chakra meditation..

what is referred to here are the colours of the chakras. each chakra carries with it it's own colour. one is to meditate and as each chakra is unlocked the colour will become visible to the spiritual eye in the darkness behind closed eyelids. what one is doing in effect is reversing the process of losing spiritual sight and having our two eyes open to this reality, and returning to the level of vision we had in the original garden of eden where we were bathed in and radiating supernal raiment.

there are 7 main chakras each leading to the crown. the crown does not open without opening all the chakras, and when this is done, one witnesses the white light of divinity and is able to enter heaven. but as mentioned before.. one can hardly open these chakras without first attaining samadhi, which is allowed by one's own spirit and God. however, all is needed is to light the candle and the connection remains permanent.

what is needed for a successful meditation.. which is the true form of prayer i will translate from multiple stories within scripture all saying the same thing?

- to live a life of compassion and completeness as in balance. The Holy Spirit must be pleased with your works and your regard for your fellow man. it will look into your heart and u can hide nothing from it.

- to believe in God and to aspire to reduce one's sins as much as possible. your soul knows it's creator and you wont get far by insulting the creator and wanting to enter his house. but the merciful Lord will provide you signs to show u justification for increasing your faith in him. it is up to u to see them and interpret them correctly. also it is not perfection that must be attained to reach samadhi, but unquestionable sincerity and proof by way of life that you can exist in God's realm without eating of the tree of life.. AGAIN.

i suppose marlener, if u were a jew, ur reason for kicking a fuss over this would be that you felt insulted that i would seemingly attribute this knowledge to christianity and wished to ensure judaism was provided it's proper credit. very well.. but my preceding posts did begin the introduction of jewish concepts as it was observed that that is where the conversation was going. the sephirot in judaism is a symbolic representation of the tree of life, and carries with it the understanding of the chakra system within man.

feel free to analyse the links ive posted in their entirety. each is not very long.. a page or 2. tho there is more information covering and seamlessly tying in all this information.. as promised i provided you with the following..

-a small briefing on aspects of the hebrew language and it's differences to ancient hebrew
- a showing of the reason that lead to the mis-transcoding of the writings as the words for skin and light are the same. רֹעו vs רֹאו leaves much room for error at the hands of men.
- an indication of how even the word ayin ( רֹעו), references the truth in it's pictoral aspect
- an example of how the qabbalah is used to justify interpretation
- and a look at the life of the scribe who penned the translation.

who would you believe among the scribes?

[rocknrolla]

The reason for my 'religion pelau' is justified. where one cannot find understanding in his own scriptures alone, he is well advised to seek elsewhere for completion. since it is most likely because of incomplete knowledge one would misinterpret and end in contradiction. one cannot find truth without the guidance of the spirit. which is why when we read our scriptures we dont just blandly read them, but also pray for wisdom and guidance in discovering truth. our ego intellect is not sufficient, but our spiritual intellect is.

Jesus spoke much of vision, the eye, and light.

all the religions act as a compass.. and this compass dear friends, points to the east!

[Habit7]

there are artwork of animals that looks like what we refer to as unicorns found in the indus valley dating to 2500BC

My point is that you take meanings, reshape and mold them to suit your own beliefs, even in your own text. Is it that the Bible was only really perfected in what it really means in 1995 with the current version of the New American Version and it was wrong and misleading all the time before?

The more you are belabouring this point the more you are advertising your ignorance of the subject. The very Wikipedia article in which you are getting 2500BC date says "A one-horned animal (which may be just a bull in profile) is found on some seals from the Indus Valley Civilization."

There are two errors you are committing
1] Eisegesis - in the fact that you are using your 21st century understanding of a figure and not only forcing it into the 18th century translation of word, but claiming that people in 14th century BC understood רְאֵם reym a single-horn horse, prancing on a rainbow, is not only incorrect and substantiated by no one outside of yourself and the misinformed website you probably got it from, but fanciful.
2]Restricting the semantic range of word -this not the first time you are doing this since your selective understanding of the word faith and later basically saying you have faith in the existence of aliens. The KJV use of the word unicorn may have been correct for that 18th century english culture because the would not be quick to run the idea of the animal from Greek Mythology but a single horn animal (or even in profile). We have an example in the antropods centipedes and millipedes. Their name literally means hundred foot and thousand foot but I am sure you wont deny the term centipede if you meet one with less that 100 legs or even deny the existence of millipedes there has never been a 1000 legged millipede observed.

Please stop going down this path, I am sure those in your camp are seeing your continuous gaffes and remaining quiet. But let us discuss something of more relevance and substance, please.



I'll address the Darwin stuff latter.