Many paths...one God?

And why are you comparing a god to mere mortals? There is no comparison to between a mortal and an eternal omnipotent, omniscient god.
I am not. I am pointing out the authors (some of which remind readers that God is beyond description) portray God in a way to which humans can relate. Ever read Black Beauty or Beautiful Joe? That horse and that dog sound awfully human. ;)
 
Countless linguists with a far better grasp on ancient languages than you have already done that.

You want to tell me that these linguists are wrong
Which linguists are you speaking of, and what have they said? Meanwhile, I am relying on someone whose primary language was Hebrew who was also brought up speaking English.
 
I am not. I am pointing out the authors (some of which remind readers that God is beyond description) portray God in a way to which humans can relate. Ever read Black Beauty or Beautiful Joe? That horse and that dog sound awfully human. ;)
You really need to work on your analogies.
 
Which linguists are you speaking of, and what have they said? Meanwhile, I am relying on someone whose primary language was Hebrew who was also brought up speaking English.
Tell me just how many experts in linguistics have translated Greek and Hebrew into other languages?

These people not only have to possess excellent command over these languages but also have to be proficient in the usage of that language over time.

We have literally thousands of years worth of linguistic study relating to the translations of both Greek and Hebrew into other languages.

Are you really telling me that you think one person who simply spoke Hebrew and English is more qualified than all the linguists that have contributed to our knowledge and application of translating Hebrew and Greek into modern language?
 
Are you really telling me that you think one person who simply spoke Hebrew and English is more qualified than all the linguists that have contributed to our knowledge and application of translating Hebrew and Greek into modern language?
Not what I said. I am saying I knew someone who spoke both languages and could give me the differences between a subjective language and one that painted pictures. His "qualification" is that he was fluent in both languages--and both cultures for that matter.

Anyone who has had lessons in any foreign language has probably had instances when the teacher noted that something is sometimes lost in the translation. My Spanish teacher often noted this--that a certain Spanish word was most like (not exactly like) the English word translated from the Spanish.

What's your point?
 
OK first god is like a human now you say we anthropomorphize gods like we do dogs.
Not what I said. I pointed out the obvious--that authors present stories in ways in which their human audience can best relate.
 
You said god doen't kill out of vengeance so why does he kill, since you're the expert on the motivation of gods?
I didn't say God kills at all. We were discussing the word 'wrath' which, in English, is often related to a vengeful anger. We were discussing a subjective word and its relation to the original Hebrew word, a picture of flaring nostrils.
 
No we are talking about the so called word of god
We are discussing The Word of God, written for humans by humans--and translated from the original Hebrew into many languages. We were comparing differing perspectives between peoples of Western culture and modern English and that of an ancient language and more ancient cultures.
 
Odd that the gods would view dead people as benefit of their ''design''.
Are you agreeing that hurricanes and tornadoes do have ecological benefits, but they should have been designed to skip over any human in their path?
 
Are you agreeing that hurricanes and tornadoes do have ecological benefits, but they should have been designed to skip over any human in their path?
What ecological benefits do tornadoes and hurricanes perform?
 
We are discussing The Word of God, written for humans by humans--and translated from the original Hebrew into many languages. We were comparing differing perspectives between peoples of Western culture and modern English and that of an ancient language and more ancient cultures.
It's important to identify that the "word of the gods" are hearsay accounts. None of the writers of the Bible had any communications with the gods. The "word of the gods" is not accurate.
 
It's important to identify that the "word of the gods" are hearsay accounts. None of the writers of the Bible had any communications with the gods. The "word of the gods" is not accurate.
It should go without saying that those who have no belief in God will hold no belief in any word of God. Even so, 'Word/s' have great meaning to many of us despite the fact many wave them away.
 
It should go without saying that those who have no belief in God will hold no belief in any word of God. Even so, 'Word/s' have great meaning to many of us despite the fact many wave them away.
What "word of god" would that be? It goes without saying that facts matter and the fact is: none of the writers of the Bible had any communications with the gods. I understand that believers are desperate to believe, but that doesn't change the facts.
 

Forum List

Back
Top