Featured OT refutation of Augustinianism

I looked at your link, mostly at who wrote it.
First the original writer, a German, C. G. Bretschneider, is so obscure he is difficult to locate even through a google search.
But the person that translated the work, Professor Henry Cowles of Oberlin College., is a far more common figure. As a professor at Oberlin College, he would have taught the accepted doctrines that Charles Finney established there a few years earlier. Finney was a heretic. To accept your link as having value is ridiculous. Oberlin theology denies the sinfulness of man, believes in the entire sanctification of man. In fact Finney thought it entirely possible that a perfectly sinless community could be preserved here on earth though he never accomplished it.

The word is first defined by its Hebrew word, not by the English translation, and second by context. There are many times the word "youth" may refer to small children.

I don't have "a proof text." I have many scriptures that run throughout the totality of Scripture, almost in every book. There is much doctrine in the book of Psalms. Peter demonstrated that Christ was the Messiah on the Day of Pentecost by using the Psalms.
The verse says nothing of babies having teeth, snakes and snails. If you don't understand the Psalm, then you need to do more study.

A spiritually dead person cannot do one good deed in the sight of God.

You never refuted me. I have never changed my stance.
The Scriptures say "we shall all give account of ourselves before God." That is true. But it has nothing to do with depravity.

It is a red herring. You are not a created being like Adam and Lucifer. Apples and oranges.

If it is Christmas and one of my children receives six gifts and the other receives five gifts is there any punishment?
No, there is only reward. Some get more reward than others. Each are rewarded according to their works, according as the Lord wills. There is no punishment here.

Both are the inspired word of God. Both are not necessarily from God's point of view. You fail to see that.

You need to study this book before you comment on it.

 

Actually, the words are different in Hebrew. The word in Genesis 8 is נְעוּרִים while the word that describes David in 1 Samuel 17 is נַעַר.

It's the same root, but, interestingly enough, both words are used in the 1 Samuel 17 passage. David is described as "boy" or "youth" (using נַעַר). Goliath is described as "'Man' of War" from his "youth" (using נְעוּרִים).

So, it is obvious the words are not synonymous. The נְעוּרִים certainly refers to being younger than a youth or teenager, and is more appropriately a young child.

נַעַר generally refers to someone who is between the age of being weaned and being married. In 1 Samuel 17, David clearly fits into that category. Generally, נְעוּרִים refers to a before-being-weaned age.

So, you are incorrect. There is nuance in the form that the KJV (and some other translations, too) don't bring out.

The Archangel

 

That article does not argue for or against Original Sin, only the history of it. It has nothing to do with Finney. This is a false form of argument called Guilt by Association.

Right. David was at least a teenager when he went out to fight Goliath, and Goliath had been a man of war since his youth. I guess Goliath was out there fighting war when he was five years old. Give it up dude.

Not all Psalms are figurative or use hyperbolic language, but Psalms 58 does and should not be taken literally, and especially should not be considered to form doctrine.

And Cornelius proves you wrong.

It has to do with the imputation of Adam's sin. You believe Adam's sin was imputed to all his posterity and that we are all therefore born dead in sin. This scripture refutes your false view.

That has nothing to do with it, you said that sin originates with a sinful nature, Satan, the fallen angels, and Adam and Eve absolutely refute your view. You must think folks are stupid, no thinking person is going to agree with you.

That is not loss. But if you took their presents back, that would be loss and punishment. Man you are stubborn.

If you lose reward, that is punishment. If you were going to get presents, but your parent took them back, that is loss.

Satan's words are Satan's words, no intelligent person would take them for doctrine. But Solomon was a true believer under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Again, you think folks are stupid, but you are making yourself look foolish. Your arguments are HORRENDOUS. They really are. You are not even aware how bad they are. Logic is not your strength, it is your weakness.

 

They are the exact same word:
David is being called a na'ar as a masculine noun:
Goliath is being spoken of using that same noun denominatively as a passive participle:

"That is a mushroom" <--noun
"The bomb's cloud mushroomed" <--denominative verb

It's the difference between me saying "you are merely an adolescent"
and
"He has been a man of war since his adolescence".

The word can refer to anything from a very young child to even an unmarried man close to his thirties....

Outside of that, it is the exact same word, and there is no nuance at all.

 

Nope.

Is isn't the "exact same word." The word that refers to David is a noun, which is about the only accurate observation in your post. The word referring to Goliath is not a participle, it is a noun as well, and, oddly enough, it's plural. In fact, in the Septuagint, the words are different and unrelated.

If you knew Hebrew, you'd know that the construction of a noun, even using the same root as the un-nuanced, has implications for the meaning. Despite what you're trying to do here--and it seems you're trying to "do" Hebrew as one might "do English--Hebrew is much more complicated than that.

Perhaps you should first try to explain why Goliath reference (and the Genesis 8 passage) use a plural noun in an otherwise singular phrase.

The Archangel

 

1 Samuel 1:22 But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband, I will not go up until the child be weaned, and then I will bring him, that he may appear before the LORD, and there abide for ever.

the child = נַעַר na`ar nah'-ar

This refers to a child before he is weaned. It is the same word used of David. Context is king.

 

Yes, context is king...

Archangel seems to be arguing that there is (or should be) an altogether different lexical definition.....
He's treating them as separate "words" with altogether differing lexical meanings.
It's not.

 

Strong's? That's what you're bringing to this discussion? That's all? That's a bit comical.

You still haven't explained why the reference to Goliath in 1 Samuel and the reference in Genesis 8 are plural. My guess is that you simply don't know, nor can you explain why a plural noun (which is masculine, by the way) is used when the singular noun na'ar is so readily available.

Also, as it may have escaped your notice, Strong's does, in fact, list two separate entries for these two separate words. So, apparently, even Strong's (in all of it's noted weaknesses) gets it right that these are not the same words.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

REALLY??
I know...I know....it was the "im" ending to the word that tipped you off to that wasn't it.
נְעוּרִים

Well, I'll be....
I'll even bet those two tiny little letters had already tipped you off to it's being plural too!!!

Fascinating language.

But what do we have for the rest of the word?
נְעוּרִ
Nun ayin ayin resh....(assuming the ayin was a geminate)

Na'ar: a "youth", kid, boy, greenhorn, rookie, child, jitterbug, adolescent, pimple-faced teeny-bopper, toddler even "servant" once in KJV.

It has a whole range of acceptable meanings and isn't particularly precise. If it were precise with respect to age it would matter to the whole of this discussion, but, it's not. It doesn't really prove anything either for or against Augustinianism.

I'm no master of Hebrew, but I know enough to know the meaningful portion is still the root word "na'ar" and it remains "na'ar" whether you add a masculine plural stem to the root or even an unchangeable-long "u" vowel.

This has essentially nothing to do with the over-all topic. In I Sam. the KJV translators knew the important thing to translate was "youth". And if you take out your Hebrew Lexicon to look up those words, you'll find:
נְעוּרִ in the same place you look up נַעַר

 

Seriously? The "im" makes it masculine? Where'd you study Hebrew, the Diesel Institute of America?

Na'ar is masculine because it is. The "im" is what makes it plural.

You're digging your hole deeper. You still haven't accounted for WHY it's using the plural form, and, I might add, you haven't accounted for the reason that the Septuagint uses two completely different words to translate the Hebrew. After all, the translators of the LXX knew much more about Hebrew than I do, and certainly more than you.

This is no longer a question of Augustinianism. Because of your comments and your wielding of Hebrew in a manner similar to a young child wielding a 40-LB sword, this is now a discussion akin to what "is" is. Your desire to be right is not going to change the text itself or the surrounding context.

The Archangel

 

You know... I'll bet you won't be able to tell me why Na'ar can't be "geminate." Off the top of my head, I can think of two glaring reasons... I wonder if you know why Na'ar can't be considered geminate.

The Archangel

 

You are right the word itself is not "geminate" I said the AYINS are, but that was a misuse of the term. I meant only to say that they are both assumed present in that form even though it only shows one of them.
And, as I was counting off which letters remain of the root word, I was showing that it has nun, ayin, ayin, resh...
It wasn't a proper use of the term though as you said.
Kudos to you for noticing.
Both of them appear in the singular form, so it is decidedly not truly a geminate noun, and there is no dagesh forte.

But....
This really is just a peeing contest for you isn't it?

I thought so, you may proclaim victory. I'll concede.

 

Oh, this isn't about winning. This is about demonstrating that you've waded into waters that are far over your head.

There are those who think a Hebrew (or Greek) lexicon or, worse, Strong's gives the tools to understand the language. Then there are others who actually struggle with and through the text, seeing and dealing with the nuance of and the beauty in the language.

It is only in working through the text that one learns the language.

Hmmmm... Nope.

In Hebrew, with nouns, there is masculine and feminine (and dual, but that's outside the scope of this discussion).

Masculine singular has no additional ending (in other words it's the lexical form). The masculine plural has the "im" ending. Feminine nouns, on the other hand, vary in their endings--some have no endings, some end in "ah". The feminine plural, however, is וֹת.

The "im" ending can and does appear on feminine nouns and the וֹת ending appears on masculine nouns. So, the lexical form is what determines the gender of a given word.

The Archangel

 

No, it isn't a "peeing contest." As a pastor who has been trained in the languages and as a pastor who uses the languages, I don't want other people being lead astray. I don't enjoy doing "damage control" as a pastor and what you're saying here--though I'm sure you don't mean it to be damaging--is, in fact, damaging.

It isn't about smarts, peeing or victory--it's about what is right and what is not; what is accurate and what is inaccurate.

Here's the word in Hebrew: נַעַר

Why would you think there are two ayins? Where are the "both of them" that you refer to? Why is there no dagesh forte?

See... You are assuming the transliteration na'ar means that there's a dagesh forte and the dagesh is indicating two ayins. In reality, ayin isn't even making a sound. The two "a"s in the transliteration "na'ar" come from the two lines under the first two characters (from right to left, as Hebrew reads). The two lines are vowels; both are "a".

The reason that there is no dagesh forte in this word is because the guttural letters and ר cannot take the dages forte--and ayin is a guttural letter. So, there is no "nun, ayin, ayin, resh."

And, in Hebrew "geminate" is a class of irregular verb, not a noun.

The Archangel

 

...............nvm.....

 

The passage you cite (Isaiah 55:6-7) refers to the covenant nation of Israel. While it is written in a prose that seems to be referring to an individual, it is addressed, specifically, to the covenant nation of Israel. Isaiah is calling on the nation to repent on a whole. Understanding the covenant blessings and cursing of Deuteronomy 28-30 puts Isaiah 55 in proper context.

 

Yes, context is king, and in most cases it is easily seen that "youth" is referring to a young person, at least teenage, and very rarely to little children.

Here are some of the uses of "youth" in scripture. Here is the first incidence after Gen 8:21

Gen 43:33 And they sat before him, the firstborn according to his birthright, and the youngest according to his youth: and the men marvelled one at another.

This is speaking of Joseph's brothers when they went down to Egypt. Were any of them babies?

Gen 46:33 And it shall come to pass, when Pharaoh shall call you, and shall say, What is your occupation?
34 That ye shall say, Thy servants' trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we, and also our fathers: that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians.

Do babies have an occupation? Do they keep cattle?

Here is the next incidence;

Lev 22:13 But if the priest's daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father's house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father's meat: but there shall no stranger eat thereof.

Do babies get married?

Next...

Num 30:3 If a woman also vow a vow unto the LORD, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father's house in her youth;

Do babies make vows unto the Lord and bind themselves by a bond?

Next...

Jud 8:20 And he said unto Jether his firstborn, Up, and slay them. But the youth drew not his sword: for he feared, because he was yet a youth.

Do babies carry swords?

Next...

1 Sam 17:33 And Saul said to David, Thou art not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him: for thou art but a youth, and he a man of war from his youth.

Was David a baby here? Was Goliath a man of war since he was a baby?

So, these are the examples in scripture in order after Gen 8:21 of the word translated "youth" in the KJB. How many of them refer to a baby? NONE. They all refer to young persons at least of teenage years.

So, it is FAR more likely that Gen 8:21 is speaking of a young person at least a teenager than a baby.

Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Babies and very little children do not have evil imaginations, little children are known for being innocent and brutally honest.

But what teenager is innocent?

Yes, context is king, and common sense is queen.

 

In another chapter of another book other than this one that you're doing violence to:

11 And Jehovah said unto me, Backsliding Israel hath showed herself more righteous than treacherous Judah.
12 Go, and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith Jehovah; I will not look in anger upon you; for I am merciful, saith Jehovah, I will not keep anger for ever.
13 Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against Jehovah thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith Jehovah.
14 Return, O backsliding children, saith Jehovah; for I am a husband unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: Jer 3

That's a very common theme throughout the scriptures. 'Returning to the Lord' is something we children of His do many, many times in our lives.