Joan of Bark

The most interesting translation issue in the OT is, in my view, that of the Hebrew word Ratsach. Does it mean kill (almost certainly not), murder, kill pre-meditatively, stalk (I believe there is a reference in ancient Hebrew literature to an animal doing this), or something more complicated. The inability of Christians to come to a firm conclusion wrt the sixth commandment points out the problem of using the Bible as a moral guide.

P.S. Thanks, Pervy, for that excellent analysis of the garden story. I'll use those arguments the next time I confront a biblical "literalist".

Dean Anderson

This thread gives a very good explanation of the meaning of Ratsach, in just that context.

No Problem.

aguy2

I checked my 'strong's' and you are right.


If it were not for the evidence that there may be an ongoing scriptual theme concerning tending the garden 'in the dust' or from underneath, I would say you are right here to.

Taken, in of itself, a single co-incidence like some oral resemblence between 'till' and 'sub-till' would seem to be of little consequence.

As a merican I grew up on "Adam and Eve and the Apple", and when I saw there was no apple and no mention of Eve till after the event, I started to take a 'clean slate' re-examination of the allegory.


Isn't it true that in one 'generation' Adam's 1st born is Seth and in another 'generation' the 1st born is supposedly Cain?


Well, it does seem to make more sense in my home tongue, and as a, 200 year, merican of scottish descent, not making sense in English might be seen as a positive attribute.

If and when there will ever be a 'latter days' or an 'end days', then the 'home tongue' of the 'superpower alliance' that stands astride terra (and the lower levels of the heavens?) could very well prove to be of more than little consequence.
Could the question be rephrased as: "Why would God make the text understandable to the dominate language of the 'critical days'?"



The fruit gives knowledge? Wouldn't it be "The Tree of Knowledge" and not the "Fruit of Knowledge"?
aguy2

Dean Anderson

But there is no theme of tending the garden from underneath. That is something that is introduced by your interpretation. You seem to be saying that you interpret the story to mean X, and therefore your interpretation must be right because the story "means X".

The "Book of Records" that was spliced into the Torah gives a geneaology from Adam to Lamech (Noah's grandfather) via Seth. A different document that was also spliced into the Torah gives a geneaology from Adam to Lamech via Cain.

It appears that the person who did the splicing added a comment about Adam and Eve having another child after Cain (Genesis 4:25-26) in order to harmonise the two geneaologies and make it appear that they are giving different lineages, rather than contradicting versions of the same lineage.

It would be better as "Why would God make the text only understandable to the dominant language of the 'critical days' rather than simply saying what he means, particularly when this part of the text has no relevance to end-times theology?"

Yes. We get apples from an apple tree. We get Juniper Berries from a Juniper Bush. We get Fruit of Knowledge from a Tree of Knowledge.

But this is still very different from your earlier interpretation of: Tree=Good, Fruit=Evil.