Uniformitarianism & Age of Creationists' Earth

yeah but your definition of "literal" is rather funny. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

---

oof, now there's some funny logic. i'd like to point out that the 2,300 year old jews didn't believe in jesus either, and necessarily so because he hadn't been born yet.further, it is a translation. and i'm reasonably positive that you're reading it in translation. so opposed to reading something that's at least in the original language, you're reading something that has been distorted by two translation cycles.further, the masoretic is much older than 1,000. under the same standards you're measuring the septuagint, it's closer to 1,800. if you're going to use the oldest surviving codex, that puts the LXX at about 400 ad.even further, there is a high degrees of correlation between the masoretic and the DSS, showing that the text (of at least the still-present books) as remained largely unchanged since before the time of christ.further still, the openning passage of genesis has been translated almost the same way from each for basically as long as translation has been done. meaning that starting with the masoretic hebrew source, and translating into greek, you'd almost certainly get what the septuagint said. it is exceptionally plausible the first verse of genesis in the LXX's source document said the same thing it does today in the masoretic.and as an aside, what possible motiviation would someone have to change the openning verse because they didn't like jesus? i'm forced to believe your point is nothing more than anti-semitic drivel. and quite surprising for someone who evidently wasted six years of their life studying biblical hebrew. now there's a motivation i cannot figure out. no, and to do so would be silly, because genesis 1:1 is a dependent clause. it's not even a complete sentence. what i do think is that needlessly breaking up the sentence, and rendering that dependent clause as referring to something else entirely, and inserting a whole other story of creation and destruction in there is rather absurd. in the middle of a sentence! Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

---

when one says "believe in jesus" that's generally what they mean. then their expectations were not of jesus, were they? i am as inclined to believe this point as i am the one you made about your expertise in hebrew. untill you start making arguments based on that text instead of merely appealing to its authority, i'm not going to believe you.in fact, here is a thread where such an argument based on the grammar of the greek text would be more than welcome. in fact, you've already posted in this thread, but did so without actually making such an argument. if you care to demonstrate your knowledge of koine greek by describing the grammatical structure of the first verse of genesis, please do so. jesus spoke aramaic. the quotes attributed to him by the authors of the new testament were indeed lifted from the LXX. but jesus also in one very prominent occassion quotes the bible in aramaic. the masoretic seems to date to about the time of the new testament. the oldest text is the 10th or 11th century, but it matches the DSS with a high degree of precision. indeed. so what's the point in championing one version, particularly the one that has been rendered in another language? like the title up there says, this is not a septuagint v. masoretic issue. they say the same thing -- you are reading it incorrectly. yes, it's all a jewish conspiracy. classy argument, that one. and what follows is the description of how. ...because it is. for the actual argument regarding that, please see the link above. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

---