@Decrypted It doesn't say the tree knows good and evil. But as for the snake speaking, of course, these stories were never meant to be taken literally. That is an error of our age.

Yet what if it was the tree speaking?

@Decrypted There is absolutely no reason to think, based on the text, that the tree was speaking.

Actually check this out:

It seems that you're reading word-by-word translations of the Hebrew without an understanding of how the words fit together in their context and syntax. The readings you are giving simply aren't what the Hebrew says.

Interlinear translations are useful for showing what each Hebrew word says. But you can't actually read the interlinear English translation as if it were real English.

3 and from fruit˙the tree˙which˙in midst˙the garden˙said˙God˙no don’t˙you will consume!˙from us˙and not˙you will go˙in˙their mouth˙you will age˙

@Decrypted This is not English.

That's what I was just saying. An interlinear word-for-word rendition of the Hebrew is not real English. If you read it as if it were, you will reap nothing but misunderstanding and confusion.

And the Tree in the middle of the garden said, "God don't eat from us or go in the mouth you will age."

@Decrypted The Hebrew does not say that. You are just plain wrong about this.

English

Show a snake that talks then?

It makes much more sense that the tree the understood good and evil spoke.

@Decrypted But the Hebrew text actually says that the snake talked. It doesn't say that the tree talked. You have to read what the Hebrew text actually says.

You can't make it say any old thing you want it to say.

Yes

Hebrew is a language with rules about how the words and phrases are put together to mean certain things. You can't just ignore the rules of the Hebrew language and make it say something completely different.

I would strongly urge you to gain a real knowledge of Hebrew before continuing on the track you're on, which only leads to misunderstanding and confusion.

Therefore in English when a man says, "To the dining room table we will eat."

If you don't even understand the text itself, there is no way you can derive any sound doctrinal or spiritual meaning from it.

We should then expect that man said to the dining room table, "we will eat."

@Decrypted No one ever says that in English.

I say to the dinning room table we will eat.

That's the old "Throw your grandmother down the stairs a towel" silliness.

Now did I say that to you or to the dinning room table?

@Decrypted Then you are not very good at speaking in English.

Thanks

No native English speaker would ever say, "To the dining room table we will eat."

It's not a real English sentence.

It's bad, fractured English.

Buzz Light year said to infinity and beyond.

Did he say nothing at all?

It's also unlikely that any native English speaker would ever say "Throw your grandmother down the stairs a towel." But it makes a great illustration of bad English phrasing.

@Decrypted It's a slogan.

It's bad, fractured English. stated the thornbush king.

Yet I say, its a good example of communication and shows a difference between Hebrew language rules and English language rules.

Did you ever notice how often Moses spoke in the bible?

@Decrypted When translating, you must translate the syntax and the flow of meaning, not just the words. You must translate Hebrew syntax (rules) into English syntax (rules). If you don't, you haven't actually translated the text from Hebrew into English.

Find it interesting since he had a speaker given to him.

@Decrypted Yes. It's not entirely clear whether Moses himself spoke or whether it's implied that Aaron spoke for Moses. An interesting little quirk of the text.

But I suspect that Moses was just making excuses when he said he wasn't a good speaker.

Or did his speaker say most things as God said it would happen, and the grammar structure needs modification?

In less then 1000 years the Greek language has modified its form.

@Decrypted By "a speaker given to him" I presume you mean Aaron as a spokesman.

Yeah

Just saying, good chance God is right.

=)

Something to think about. Time to go.

Have a perfect night.

However, even when an important person spoke through a spokesman or translator, it was still commonly said that the important man said something, not that the spokesman or translator said it. The spokesman would even say, "Thus says Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon" to introduce the remarks. And it would be taken as Neduchadnezzar speaking.

@Decrypted Good night.

@LeeWoofenden Looking a bit for more examples of this, take a look at Genesis 18:9

Now the first word in weakness I do not fully comprehend.

וַיֹּאמְר֣וּ (and he will say they)

go to his'where'wife of you'

this makes sense, in the fact that "this time next year they would have a son"

Also it could say (and they will say they)

Realize my lack of understanding the first word, yet here's a try.

"And they said to him, "go to your wife"

@Decrypted Just read a standard translation of Genesis 18:9 and you will see what it says, and means. For example:

> They said to him, “Where is your wife Sarah?” And he said, “There, in the tent.” (Genesis 18:9, NRSV)

I don't know why you keep trying to make the text of the Bible say things it doesn't say.

@curiousdannii Would you please provide an answer to this question without the use of pagan philosophy?

What I see in AthanasiusOfAlex's answer is that not only must we have a working knowledge of Plato and Aristotle, but concerning a particular issue that Aristotle and Plato disagree about, the trinity doctrine merges these two contradictory ideas.

The trinity would be easy to understand if we could say "Father, son, and cousin are of the same human nature, but they are three distinct persons". That makes perfect sense to me. The problem is, no matter how many words we make up or borrow from pagans and gnostics, we can never say that these three humans are "one human".

And even if it were possible to say these three humans are one human, or these three gods are one God, where do the Scriptures or NT ever say this?

@anonymouswho You can't ask how to explain Greek based terms without reference to their Greek usages. That doesn't mean that the trinity depends on Greek philosophy

@anonymouswho The scriptures would never say either of those things because they are completely heretical

@curiousdannii I understand what you mean about the Greek language, but οὐσία means "property, possession", and it was Aristotle that first used this word to mean "substance".

Hypostasis is another word created by Greek philosophers, not linguists or lexographers. And it all gets summed up by stating God is "inconceivable" or "unknowable".

That's not what Yeshua says..."These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, FATHER, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this IS life eternal, that they might KNOW thee the ONLY true God, AND Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." John 17:1-3

@KorvinStarmast I have now posted an answer to your question here:

@anonymouswho Thanks for the link. Great passage! Swedenborg does not mince his words when it comes to the Trinity of Persons . . . .

@KorvinStarmast I have also now posted my answer as an article on my blog: "What is the Difference between Justification and Salvation in Swedenborg’s Theology?"

@KorvinStarmast Thanks for asking a good question! I spent quite a bit of time researching it to ensure that my answer is solid and clear. If you see any areas where it could be improved, please let me know.

@anonymouswho so by your own admission just then, that use and definition was introduced into the Greek language by Aristotle centuries (5) before the new testament...