Coolhand

יהוה S3068, 3069, 3070, 3071, 3072, 3073, 3074 TWOT484a GK3378c. 6823 i.e. יַהְוֶה n.pr.dei Yahweh, the proper name of the God of Israel—(1. MT יְהֹוָה6518 (Qr אֲדֹנָי), or יֱהוִֹה305 (Qr אֱלֹהִים), in the combinations אדני יהוה & יהוה אדני (vid. אֲדֹנָי), and with prep. בַּיהֹוָה, לַיהֹוָה, מֵיהֹוָה (Qr בַּאדֹנָי, לַאדֹנָי, מֵאדֹנָי), do not give the original form. G and other Vrss follow the Qr. On the basis of Ex 20:7 Lv 24:11 יהוה was regarded as a nomen ineffabile (vid. Philo de Vita Mosis iii, 519, 529), called by the Jews הַשֵּׁם and by the Samaritans שׁימא. The pronunciation Jehovah was unknown until 1520, when it was introduced by Galatinus; but it was contested by Le Mercier, J. Drusius, and L. Capellus, as against grammatical and historical propriety (cf. Bö§ 88). The traditional Ἰαβέ of Theodoret and Epiphanius, the ־יָהוּ, יְהֹו־ of compound n.pr. and the contracted form יָהּ, all favour יַהְוֶה (cf. יַהֲלֹמ֑וּן ψ 74:6; תַּהֲרוּ Is 33:11), v. LagSym i. 14 BaudissinStudien i. 179 ff.; DrStud. Bib. i. 1 ff. For Jeve v. StaZAW 1881, 346 De ib. 1882, 173 f. & Gn. Excurs. ii. 2. on liter. of interpret. v. NesEg 67 Drl.c..—Many recent scholars explain יַהְוֶה as Hiph. of הוה ( = היה) the one bringing into being, life-giver (cf. הַוָּה Gn 3:20) Schr HSch; giver of existence, creator, Kue Tiele; he who brings to pass (so already Le Clerc), performer of his promises, Lag, NesEg 88 (but NesEg 91 inclines to Qal as RSBrit. & For. Ev. Rev. v. infr.); or from הוה he who causes to fall, rain or lightning RSOTJC ed. 1, 423; om. ed. 2, 245, cf. WeSkizzen iii. 175; ‘Fäller,’ destroying foes, StaG i. 429 (dubiously). But most take it as Qal of היה ( = היה); the one who is: i.e. the absolute and unchangeable one, Ri; the existing, ever-living, as self-consistent and unchnageable, Di; or the one ever coming into manifestation as the God of redemption, De Oehl; cf. also RSBrit. & For. Ev. Rev. 1876, he will be it, i.e. all that his servants look for (cf. Ewinfr.), he will approve himself (give evidence of being, assert his being Drl.c. 17).) theories of non-Heb. or non-Sem. origin. opposed (in their older forms) by BauRel i. 181 ff. (v. especially 230); DlPa 162 ff. claimed Bab. origin for יהו, agaisnt this KueNational religions, etc., Note iv (Eng. Trans. 329 ff.) JastrJBL xiii (1894), 103 f. cf. HptBAS i. 170 N; Dl Babel u. Bibel, 46 f., 73 f. makes same claim for יהוה, agst. this v. especially HirschZAW xxiii (1903), 355 ff. ZimKAT 3, 465 ff.; SpiegelbergZMG liii (1899), 633 ff. proposes (improb.) Egyptian etymol. for יהוה; further discussions see in KöEB Names, § 112 and n. 3. ‘Jehovah’ found in Jacob (? Johann.) Wessel († 1480), according to SchwallyThLZ, 1905, col. 612. I. יהוה is not used by E in Gn, but is given Ex 3:12–15 as the name of the God who revealed Himself to Moses at Horeb, and is explained thus: אֶהְיֶה עִמָּ֑ךְ I shall be with thee (v 12), which is then implied in אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה I shall be the one who will be it v 14a (i.e. with thee v 12) and then compressed into אֶהְיֶה v 14b (i.e. with thee v 12), which then is given in the nominal form יהוה He who will be it v 15 (i.e. with thee v 12). Cf. EwBTh ii. 337, 338 RSl.c., Proph. 385 ff. Other interpretations are: I am he who I am, i.e. it is no concern of yours (Le Clerc LagPsalt. Hieron. 156); I am, (this is my name), inasmuch as I am (אֲשֶׁר = כִּי; AE JDMich WeJD Th xxi, 540 = Comp. Hex 72); Di al. I am who I am, he who is essentially unnameable, inexplicable.—E uses יהוה sparingly by the side of אלהים and האלהים in his subsequent narrative. The Ephraimitic wriers in Ju S K use it in similar proportions. P abstains from the use of יהוה until he gives an account of its revelation to Moses Ex 6:3; but subsequently uses it freely. He gives no explanation of its meaning. He represents that אֵל שַׁדַּי was the God of the patriarchs. J uses יהוה from the beginning of his narrative, possibly explaining it, Gn 21:33 be עולם אל, the evergreen tamarisk being a symbol of the ever-living God; cf. De Gn 21:33. Elsewhere יהוה is the common divine name in pre-exilic writers, but in post-exilic writers gradually falls into disuse, and is supplanted by אלהים and אדני. In Job it is used 31 times in prose parts, and 12:9 (a proverb); not elsewhere in the poem. Chr apart from his sources prefers אלהים and האלהים. Dn uses יהוה only in chap. 9 (7 times); Ec not at all. In the Elohistic group of ψ 42—83 it is used 39 times (see אלהים). It occurs as the name of Israel’s God MI 18. It is doubtful whether it was used by other branches of the Shemitic family, cf. COT Gn 2:4b DlPa 158 ff. DrStud. Bib. i. 7 ff. II. 3. יהוה is used with אלהים with or without suffs., especially in D; a. with אֱלֹהֶיךָ in the Ten Words Ex 20:2–12 (5 times) = Dt 5:6–16; in the law of worship of JE, Ex 23:19; 34:24, 26; in D 234 times; Jos 1:9, 17; 9:9, 24 (D); elsewhere Gn 27:20 Ex 15:26 (JE), Ju 6:26; S & K 20 times 1 Ch 11:2; 22:11, 12 2 Ch 9:8(×2); 16:7 Is 7:11; 37:4(×2); 41:13; 43:3; 51:15; 55:5 Je 40:2 + (3 times) Ho 12:10; 13:4; 14:2 Am 9:15 ψ 81:11. b. with אֱלֹהֵיכֶם in D 46 times; D 28 times; H 15 times; P 15 times; elsewhere Ex 23:25 (E); 8:24; 10:8, 16, 17 (JE); Ju 6:10 1 S 12:12, 14 2 K 17:39; 23:21 1 Ch 22:18 + (10 times Chr) ψ 76:12 Je 13:16 + (5 times) Ez 20:5, 7, 19, 20 Jo 2:13 + (6 times) Zc 6:15. c. with אֱלֹהֵינוּ in D 23 times; in D 5 times; Ex 8:6 (JE) Ex 3:18; 5:3; 8:22, 23; 10:25, 26 (E) Ju 11:24 1 S 7:8 1 K 8:57, 59, 61, 65 2 K 18:22; 19:19 = Is 36:7; 37:20, 1 Ch 13:2 + (15 times Chr) Mi 4:5; 7:17 Is 26:13 Je 3:22 + (17 times) ψ 20:8; 90:17 (?; Baer אֲדנָי) 94:23; 99:5, 8, 9(×2); 105:7; 106:47; 113:5; 122:9; 123:2 Dn 9:10, 13, 14. d. c. אֱלֹהֵיהֶם Ex 10:7 (J) Ex 29:46(×2) Lv 26:44 (P) Ju 3:7; 8:34 1 S 12:9 1 K 9:9 2 K 17:7, 9, 14, 16, 19; 18:12 2 Ch 31:6; 33:17; 34:33 Ne 9:3(×2), 4 Je 3:21; 22:9; 30:9; 43:1(×2) 50:4 Ez 28:26; 34:30; 39:22, 28 Ho 1:7; 3:5; 7:10 Zp 2:7 Hag 1:12(×2) Zc 9:16; 10:6. e. with אֱלֹהָיו Nu 23:21 (E) Ex 32:11 (J) Lv 4:22 (P) Dt 17:19; 18:7 1 S 30:6 1 K 5:17; 11:4; 15:3, 4 2 K 5:11; 16:2 2 Ch 1:1 + 13 times Chr; Mi 5:3 Je 7:28 ψ 33:12; 144:15; 146:5 Jon 2:2. f. with אֱלֹהַי Nu 22:18 (JE) Dt 4:5; 18:16; 26:14 Jos 14:8, 9 2 S 24:24 1 K 3:7; 5:18, 19; 8:28; 17:20, 21 1 Ch 21:17; 22:7 2 Ch 2:3; 6:19 Ezr 7:28; 9:5 ψ 7:2, 4; 13:4; 18:29; 30:3, 13; 35:24; 40:6; 104:1; 109:26 Is 25:1 Je 31:18 Dn 9:4, 20 Jon 2:7 Hab 1:12 Zc 11:4; 13:9; 14:5. g. with אֱלֹהַיִךְ Is 60:9 Je 2:17, 19; 3:13 Mi 7:10 Zp 3:17. h. with אלהים, probably always due to later editors, or to a Qr which has crept into the text Gn 2:4b—3:23 (J, 20 times either אלהים inserted by RP as Di De; or יהוה inserted by J in an older source); Ex 9:30 (J, but not in G Sam.; Sam. אדני יהוה; possibly MT from earlier Qr, & Sam. from later Qr); 2 S 7:22, 25 (G אדני יהוה and 1 Ch 17:20–23 only יהוה); 1 Ch 17:16, 17 (but 2 S 7:18, 19 אדני יהוה) 1 Ch 28:20; 29:1 2 Ch 1:9; 6:41(×2), 42; 26:18 (but in the original ψ 132:8 stood יהוה (so ℌ), or else no divine name); ψ 72:18 (the late doxology) 84:12 (but it makes the line too long); Jon 4:6. For the combinations with other divine names see those names. 4. the phrase †אֲנִי יהוה is noteworthy:—a. after אמר either alone Ex 6:2, 29 (P) or before relative and other clauses: Gn 28:13 (J) 15:7 ® Ex 6:6 (P) with אלהיכם Ju 6:10 Ez 20:5. b. after ידע כי (α) Ex 7:17; 8:18; 10:2 (J); Ex 7:5; 14:4, 18 (P); 1 K 20:13, 28 Je 24:7 Ez 6:7 + 4:8 times Ez; (β) with אלהיכם Ex 6:7; 16:12 Dt 29:5 (P) Ez 20:20 Jo 4:17; (γ) with אלהיהם Ex 29:46 (P) Ez 28:26; 34:30; 39:22, 28; (δ) before relative and other clauses Is 45:3; 49:23, 26; 60:16 Ez 7:9; 17:24; 21:10; 22:22; 35:12; 36:36; (ε) with various forms of קדשׁ Ex 31:13 (P) Ez 20:12; 37:28; 39:7; (ζ) with דברתי Ez 5:13; 17:21, cf. יֵדְעוּ אשׁר אני י׳ Ez 20:26. c. after כִּי in various combinations Lv 11:44, 45 Nu 35:34 (P), Lv 20:7, 26; 21:8, 15, 23; 22:16; 24:22; 25:17; 26:1, 44 (all H); Ex 15:26 ® Is 41:13; 43:3; 61:8; Je 9:23 Ez 12:25; 21:4 Zc 10:6 Mal 3:6. d. emphatic Ex 6:8; 12:12 Lv 26:2, 45 Nu 3:13, 41, 45 (all P); Lv 18:5, 6, 21; 19:12, 14, 16, 18, 28, 30, 32, 37; 21:12; 22:2, 3, 8, 30, 31, 33 (all H) Is 43:15; with אלהיהם Ex 29:46; with אלהיךָ Is 48:17; with אלהיכם Lv 23:43; 25:38, 55 Nu 10:10; 15:41(×2) (P) Lv 18:2, 4, 30; 19:2, 3, 4, 10, 25, 31, 34, 36; 20:24; 23:22; 26:13 (all H) Ez 20:7, 19 Jo 2:27; with מְקַדֵּשׁ Lv 20:8; 22:9, 32 (H), with דברתי Nu 14:35 (P) Ez 5:15 + (11 times Ez); with clauses Is 27:3; 41:4, 17; 42:6, 8; 45:5, 6, 7, 8, 18, 19, 21; 60:22 Je 17:10; 32:27 Ez 14:4, 7, 9; 34:24; †אָנֹכִי יהוה is used in the Ten Words Ex 20:2, 5 = Dt 5:6, 9 cited ψ 81:11 Ho 12:10; 13:4; elsewhere only Ex 4:11 (J) Is 43:11; 44:24; 51:15. 5. יהוה is also used with several predicates, to form sacred names of holy places of Yahweh יהוה יראה Gn 22:14 (J); יהוה נסי Ex 17:15 (E) יהוה שׁלום Ju 6:24 יהוה צדקנו Je 33:16 (cf. 23:6 where it is applied to the Messiah); יהוה שָׁ֑מָּה Ez 48:35.—On combinations such as הַר י׳, י׳ צְבָאֹות etc., v. הַר, צָבָא, etc. Note.—BonkZAW 1891, 126 ff. seems to shew that as prefix, in comp. n.pr., יְהֹו is the oldest and the latest form and that יֹו is intermediate, belonging to the earlier post-exilic period until the time of Chr; occasional copyists’ mistakes being taken into the account. Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Strong's, TWOT, and GK References Copyright 2000 by Logos Research Systems, Inc., electronic ed. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2000), xiii. 484a יהוה (yhwh) Yahweh. 484b יָה (yāh) Yahweh. The root signifies either existence, e.g. of a tree trunk, being at rest where it falls (Eccl 11:3), or development, e.g. of Nehemiah’s alleged scheme to become king of Judah (Neh 6:6). Only three other instances of hāwâ II are preserved in the Hebrew ot (Gen 27:29; Eccl 2:22; Isa 16:4), though hāwâ remains as the standard form of the verb “to be” in biblical Aramaic. יַהוֶה (Yahweh). The Tetragrammaton YHWH, the Lord, or Yahweh, the personal name of God and his most frequent designation in Scripture, occurring 5321 times (TDNT, III, p. 1067) in the ot (KJV and ASV, the Lord, or, in those contexts where the actual title “Lord” also occurs, GOD, except KJV, Jehovah, in seven passages where the name is particularly stressed (Ex 6:3; Ps 83:18 [H 19]; Isa 12:2; 26:4] or combined with other elements, such as Jehovah Jireh [Gen 22:14; cf. Ex 17:15; Jud 6:24; ASV, consistently Jehovah]). R. Laird Harris, Robert Laird Harris, Gleason Leonard Archer and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980), 210. יהוה (hwh): n.pr.; ≡ Str 3068, 3069, 3070, 3071, 3072, 3073, 3074;—LN 12.9 (true God) (njb) Yahweh: Jehovah, the Lord as an euphemism for Adonai, most versions the name of the one true God, with a focus on sure existence and His relationship to his covenant persons and peoples (Ex 3:15), see also 3363 James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament), electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), HGK3378.

Interesting.......considering this mean nasty God is YHWH, who is the one being quoted in Micah 6:8 which seems to be pretty popular at the moment. Hmmmmm.....I hadn't thought of that. It seems that God gets the blame both ways......

The signifcance is that YHWH or Jehovah was being quoted in Micah 6:8.

Yeah, very nice.

Yes, exactly, not Lord but YHWH.

What I meant was that I agree with Hex and I felt like that line in Micah 6:8 was a good summary as to what our motivation and mode of operations should be. Regarding the comment on "LORD" I was merely sharing a textual detail that I found interesting.

Thanks for all the love Pete, but the underlying Hebrew word for LORD is YHWH. That is not a word play, that is not an interpretation, that is straight from the text. It is not condescending to know something and share it.

Yeah, I like that. I think that pretty much summs it up. Ever wonder why specifically the title "LORD" is used there? As opposed to God, or LORD God, or Lord.

Are you sure we would both revere Micah 6: The Lord’s Case Against Israel 6 Listen to what the Lord says: “Stand up, plead your case before the mountains; let the hills hear what you have to say. 2 Hear, O mountains, the Lord’s accusation; listen, you everlasting foundations of the earth. For the Lord has a case against his people; he is lodging a charge against Israel. 3 “My people, what have I done to you? How have I burdened you? Answer me. 4 I brought you up out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. I sent Moses to lead you, also Aaron and Miriam. 5 My people, remember what Balak king of Moab counseled and what Balaam son of Beor answered. Remember your journey from **tim to Gilgal, that you may know the righteous acts of the Lord.” 6 With what shall I come before the Lord and bow down before the exalted God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? 7 Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 8 He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. Israel’s Guilt and Punishment 9 Listen! The Lord is calling to the city— and to fear your name is wisdom— “Heed the rod and the One who appointed it.  10 Am I still to forget, O wicked house, your ill-gotten treasures and the short ephah, which is accursed? 11 Shall I acquit a man with dishonest scales, with a bag of false weights? 12 Her rich men are violent; her people are liars and their tongues speak deceitfully. 13 Therefore, I have begun to destroy you, to ruin you because of your sins. 14 You will eat but not be satisfied; your stomach will still be empty. You will store up but save nothing, because what you save I will give to the sword. 15 You will plant but not harvest; you will press olives but not use the oil on yourselves, you will crush grapes but not drink the wine. 16 You have observed the statutes of Omri and all the practices of Ahab’s house, and you have followed their traditions. Therefore I will give you over to ruin and your people to derision; you will bear the scorn of the nations.” The Holy Bible : New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, c1984), Mic 6:1-16.

I would enjoy that. However, I didn't think that was the purpose of this discussion:

Interesting it is. The topic is the second topic about liberal Christianity and apparently to share the differences between liberal Christianity and fundamental Christianity. What I have found is that you cannot discuss the differences because only fundamental Christianity has fundamentals that are nailed down to compare to. For example: The motorcycle club I ride with, which is a chaplaincy type ministry, is an interdenominational ministry consisting of: Calvary, Church of Christ, Southern Baptists, Baptists, independents, Seventh Day Adventists, and Assembly of God. There are enough theological differences on minor points, but we agree upon and unite under the five fundamentals of Christianity: (1) the virgin birth of Jesus; (2) the deity of Jesus; (3) the inspired Scriptures; (4) the vicarious atoning death of Jesus; (5) and the resurrection of Jesus. These fundamentals give us a basis for fellowship and ministry. Another example: As a member of the Assemblies of God denomination, we have sixteen fundamental truths that provide a basis for our unity and fellowship: (1)inspired Scriptures; (2) one true God; (3) the deity of Jesus; (4) man sinned willfully; (5) salvation is available to everyone; (6) two ordinances: baptism and communion; (7) Holy Spirit Baptism; (8) speaking in tongues; (9) sanctification begins at salvation; (10) the church's mission; (11) ordained leadership; (12) divine healing; (13) second coming of Christ; (14) millennial reign; (15) final judgment; (16) new heavens and earth. The point is not to force people into believing these things as some may try to argue. The point is that if a person believes these things they want to find other likeminded people to fellowship with. These are fundamentals that do not have to be rehashed every time one is brought up. I made a few comments regarding what it appears to me liberal Christianity is about or what liberal Christians believe, and basically from the responses of the posters in this discussion, liberal Christianity is indefinable. If that is the case, why does there need to be two topics started to state that? What is the basis of fellowship for liberal Christians? Or am I looking at this all wrong and is it the lack of doctrinal foundation that is the basis for liberal Christian fellowship? Or again possibly I could still be assuming that there is a basis for fellowship when there could actually be no basis for fellowship, other than simply liberal Christians are not fundamental Christians. Or again, is it just a moving target?

In your opinion, are miralces random occurance? Can we in anyway affect the occurance of a miracle?

Miracles, like what?

I'm sorry Pete. My comment regarding "please state why" was meant to be taken in a theological sense, being that this is a discussion regarding the differnces between liberal and fundamental Christianity. It was not meant to be taken in the way that it seems to have been taken. It was worded vague enough however that I understand why (now) people took it that way. All I can do is say I am sorry; that was not my intent. I will say this about fundamentlist Christians, they seem to have a lot less rules regarding praying. Anybody that feels led to can lead prayer on anything and nobody has a problem with it, or even looks at it in a condescending way. But the bottom line is, I was not taking into consideration th cultural context of the board and participants in this dicsussion. My apologies to all.

Jesus and the other New Testament writers make is a point to mention praying in the name of Jesus. There are promises that action from God that will follow these prayers of faith. If you are convinced that this model is a failure and does not work, fine. My question to you would then be: "How do you go about it?" Fundamentalists ask for God's help and expect supernatural things to follow. Liberal Christians seems to use the example of Jesus as a model for them to do thier acts of kindness and charity. I'm not downing that, I think that is admirable. What confuses me however, is that if your charitable works are only those of which the men and women involved can accomplish, how then to do you ever witness the supernatural in your ministry? It is becoming more obvious to me that liberal Christians do not see the supernatural because they do not believe in the supernatural. Which would seem to me that they do works of charity and kindness (which is great), but miralces may not be part of the liberal Christian ministry.

Biblical, fundamental....whichever. I have bee using "biblical" in this discussion because it seemed logical due the the difference of opinion is based on biblical understanding and interpretation. We can call it whatever you want. We seem to have some disagreement regarding 'how' the spirit moves between fundamantalist, liberal Christians, Jewish, and UU. I do think it would be nice if we could articulate theological difference.

Again, it is really not about who "calls" the prayer effort, it is about having compassion for someone and standing in the gap for for them. I suspect now we are going to see the true differences between liberal Christianity and Biblical Christianity. Is the arrogant one the one that calls everyone to action, or is the arrogant one the one that refuses to take action because he dislikes the the method or the person used to call people to action?

I agree that it is not enough to quote this or that and expect that to change anything. Action is the key, and I agree with that. I had suggested that based on the Bible as it describes the promises of God and the authority of God; it tells us to pray in this authority with the expectation that the need with be met and the need will be met. Yet, this text is rejected, questioned, and maligned by so many and its imperatives are flatly ignored. I would argue that the Bible cannot logically ignored and then deemed ineffective and inaccurate for its principles and imperatives not working by people who will not apply them. It is like putting a model together but refusing to use the instructions and then saying the instruction don’t work. I feel you are looking for an answer that is not given in the biblical text or in any other theological or philosophical system. Evil already existed when the Bible narrative starts. Evil was intruded upon when the creation narrative starts. We have nothing but philosophical theory regarding the start of evil; assuming it had a start. Based on the information we have it would not be unreasonable to assume that it has always existed. But we do see- in the Bible- that an end to evil is predicted.

Wow. There is only one “leader” which is God. I think you may be missing the point.

A question to the people who are participating in this discussion: Can we join together and pray about these things? This is the real deal here. To me, this is the difference between theology and philosophy; and like Pete says the difference between rhetoric and answers. Notice in the gospels right before Jesus healed people, he became filled with compassion, and then the healing power of God was released. Can you feel this compassion? Let's do this, together. If you object to committing to daily prayer for these needs expressed, please state why.

I agree with you, though I state things differently. In a marraige relationship it takes two. If one love the other, but the other becomes indiffernt, the reltionaship is doomed. Without adding more to it than what it is saying, that is the Ah'hava love in the Hebrew Scriptures that the Agape in the Greek is supposed to be translating.

I think we should pray and fast for you and your parents. I think it is major wrong to accuse anyone of a lack of faith when they do not see the manifestaion of a healing that is being prayed for. You are not the problem and I would disagree with anyone that would tell you are. We should pray and not give up. I am up for it. The way I see it is that you are part of my family Pete, and these are attacks on you and your family. God had promised that He is our healer.

I'm not sure which question you are refering to, which I assumed were rhetorical: (Am I the one who is supposed to show you how to find hope in the face of truth?) Sure, what do you have? I asked that because I failed see any hope in your analysis. I have hope, as I have already explained. The reason I asked that is to see what hope you see in your conclusion to try and understand your position better. Do you want me to hold your hand and tell you fairy tales? I pretty much ignore comments like this. Which one of us has created a dichotomy? I'm not sure, I was thinking it was you. Obviously you disagree, so mabe you could clear it up by explaining what hope you find in the truth you claim to be the truth.

I do not believe that it was God's purpose to prevent evil from existing. No where in Scripture would you get that idea. It is clear through Scripture that God desires to spend eternity which those who are skilled at diserning and overcoming evil by relying on Him. This makes the whole argument based on the failed omniscient God an irrelevant point. I don't think I have said anything about the Bible being inerrant. You seem to keep bringing it up.

That is not proof of anything. All these things point to is that most likely mankind had its start from from one goup of people in one specific geographical location and spread out frome there, each retaining parts of the well known narratives that were passed down to them, and replacing the parts of the narrative (or leaving them out) that the did not like. If that is true then why do you judge, demonize, and mistreat biblical Christians and biblical Christianity? Is there some sort of double standard in your theology that allows or requires that to bring this beingness and harmony? Why would you make that assumption? Is there something in that narrative that would lead you to that conclusion? I do not see any reason to take that as a metaphor, other than it is an extremely uncomfortable image to consider. But textually, that is not a reason.