Friday, August 27, 2010

Adam's Rib from Pastor Tice

Why did God give Moses this word? and What does Da. 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. mean? It may well have meant to Moses a CELL anyway. There is plenty of info available to hint they are not a dumb as we think. God spent twice 40 days and 40 night with Moses on the mountain top and then in Moses' tent too. Fact is if you can't be sure, then why do many fuss with the Joke mockery God didn't make Adam and Steve. It is a FACT also whether it meant CELL or RIB the DNA was still there and the DNA did what it did and is doing today. It is just we can show it is possible God already told us about DNA.

Moses may have no clue about cells but God did. God could have told Moses use the other Bible word for rib, there can be no question with that other words as in can't mean anything else but the bone. But the word used you just can't get away from chamber. Now as I noted Roy Blizzard taught this not me. He was super on things, He was a Pre-Zola on TBN. And there are many sources that also says it. What you have done is limit God. Although the Bible is told of our day today and uncountable source try to explain it and we have no problems with lots of the explanations that Moses or any other Bible character would ever have a clue about, but we today have access to all knowledge as it were as Daniel said.



pastor.tice has left a new comment on your post "Third reply to http://www.levitt.com/ ZOLA LEVITT ...":

The key to interpretation is authorial intent. What did it mean in the author's mind? Since Moses did not know about cells 3500 years ago when he wrote Genesis, "cell" (even if it is a modern meaning of צלע) can't possibly be included in the semantic domain for צלע in his generation (applying synchronic analysis). Projecting a modern meaning back onto an ancient text is a flawed approach. I'm afraid you're stuck with "rib" or "side."

1 comment:

pastor.tice said...

It has been the scholarly consensus for quite some time that diachronic reading is not a legitimate approach to an ancient text. What the word means 3500 years later has no bearing on how it is used in 1400 BCE. The synchronic approach is favored (see James Barr and Stanley Porter's works on this), and there is no extant example of צלע meaning "cell" in the 13th Century BCE. There is a Greek word in the New Testament which, in modern Greek, means "bus stop;" are we to read it thus when we read the Bible today? Absolutely absurd! We read the ancient text the way the ancients understood it.

Every text has to mean something in its original context; it can't mean nothing to the author and original audience. And, it certainly didn't mean "cell" to the common Hebrew hearing Moses' words on the plains of Moab waiting to cross over into the Promised Land. But, even if they did have 20th century knowledge in the 14th Century BCE... how does Blizzard's reading change what the text means? The surrounding context makes it incontrovertibly clear that Adam and Eve parented children. In order to do that, they had to be a man and a woman. The Edenic family unit, no matter how you read צלע, was an איש (man) and a אשה (woman).