I would expect someone who seems to know so much about the biblical languages to know the Greek definition of such a trivial word as pistis. It’s just the noun form of the word believe. I think the word you’re referring to is oligopistos (little faith).
I'm not sure why I have to keep repeating this, but I'm trying not to argue over those kinds of details since they are superficial to my argument. I've given a clear indication of where those verses are by identifying the lineages that contain them, but purposely haven't brought them in directly because doing so would distract from my argument rather than add to it.
It's worth asking again, have you actually studied the Biblical languages? Their grammar and construction? Or do you just look up words in lexicons and assume that these things function the same way?
Look we can argue about this for eternity or you can just post the verse that uses the Hebrew word yalad in a manner that means to bring forth a line or lineage and prove your point so we can get past this debate. I’ve already looked and can’t find it, maybe you can help me learn something by presenting this verse so I can stop misinterpreting the scriptures.
That wouldn't prove my point, as my point is not quibbling over word-meanings though such quibbles are included within the larger thrust of what I am arguing. The fact that we have to figure out what the word means is part of the interpretive process, and word meanings are never certain especially with Hebrew since it's a re-constructed language.
It doesn't serve my purposes to do so, especially since you insist on trying to drag us into the rabbit hole of interpretational dispute without first vetting out and coming to an agreement on our assumptions about what kind of text we are reading and what literary conventions to understand the text through.
I’ve done some study, not a whole lot and I have noticed that different usages can imply different meanings. Like for example the Hebrew words yovm and beyovm are two different variations of the word Yom. The prefix Be adds the term “in the” which can alter the usage of the word day to mean an unspecified amount of time that occurred at a general period in time. For example Genesis 5:1 uses the word Beyovm that is in reference to the period of time during Adam’s life that is not limited to a 24 hour period. But I’ve also learned that the Hebrew word Yovm is NEVER used the same way anywhere in the Old Testament. So I do have some understanding about how the different variations of Hebrew words can have a very huge effect on how they’re actually used.
Ok then there’s no point in even continuing arguing about it if you’re just going to make claims that I can’t find evidence to support and you’re unwilling to actually produce any evidence that supports them. If all you’re going to do is make unsupported claims then there’s no point in continuing the discussion.
What, precisely, do you mean by "some study"? Have you read a Hebrew or Greek grammar? Or are you talking about doing word studies?
Sounds like word studies, which can lead to erroneous conclusions if the differences in grammar aren't understood. For instance, Hebrew words aren't concrete the way English words are because Hebrew is a "visual" language for lack of a better word. That makes the semantics of it a bit loose, because the words tend to be presented to conjure mental pictures from which the meaning is understood rather than abstract grammatical connections. For instance, the word for anger is more precisely translated something like "flaring nostrils" if we're trying to be literal about it. This makes it so the best way to understand a word in Hebrew is not by doing long-range word studies but by doing tight contextual surveys, which requires us to first understand what kind of literature our target word is found in.
Perhaps if you read my posts trying to understand what I'm saying, rather than looking to argue it wouldn't have come to this. Because you're trying to attack superficial elements of my argument rather than the primary points I've made.
No I’m done because your whole argument is based on unsupported claims. Just because you make a claim about how the Hebrew language is intended to be interpreted but repeatedly refuse to provide any examples to support that claim doesn’t mean that you actually presented a fact. The last 10 posts or so have basically been both of us going back & forth like a couple of elementary kids saying uhuh, uh uh, uhuh, uh uh, uhuh, uh uh, it’s just childish and I refuse to be a participant of it anymore.
Your arguments provide the support needed, because if there were no interpretive elements we could both simply read the text and come to the exact same conclusions every time. But we don't. Now, you may think my interpretation is wrong but by engaging in arguments over what the right way to read it are tacitly accepts that we must make an interpretation. So why don't you just quote the text undefended, rather than arguing for the reasons your interpretation is stronger than mine?
Gen. 3:17 states, "And unto Adam he said, because thou has hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree... (Vs. 20) And Adam called his wife's name Eve...(Vs. 21) Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
