|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5043 days) Posts: 14 From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Joseppi Member (Idle past 4972 days) Posts: 50 From: New Albany, In, USA Joined: |
quote:There is meaning there right in front of your nose. You are simply picking and choosing your determinations according to personal whim. You reveal no tendency towards equity. Is the Hebrew language in the English text? No. Is the signature of the supposed authors in the text? No. Is your limited viewpoint evidenced anywhere in the text? No. Again, such excuses as you have thus far been using aren't useful in debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And you are making up the notion that I'm making things up. Yes, you have said that, but I must once again ask you to show where in Genesis 1 there is anything related to "God's intention was to eventually put his throne on earth and dwell there." If it is not in Genesis 1 then you are just making stuff up. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Joseppi writes:
That one's going in the signature. It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English.... Edited by ringo, : Fixed signature. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joseppi Member (Idle past 4972 days) Posts: 50 From: New Albany, In, USA Joined: |
quote: Judgment and righteousness do indeed flow parallel. But, judgment and righteousness are two different things. And that is the thing about parallelism, it means diddly squat when one says the water flowed as the other water flowed. It has meaning when two distinct things run parallel. Thus, in the above quoted verse, judgment runs down as waters, means that the judgment of God from the throne runs down as many kinds of waters and in many streams applying to many, and even all matters, some small and some great. Whereas, righteousness as a mighty stream teaches that God's righteousness as evidenced by his many judgments, focuses the power of the waters into a stream that can't be withstood by anything. Regardless, the Isaiah quote had nothing to do with anything parallel as far as I can tell.The semicolon denoted the the phrase "yea, I made him" is referring to the the previous to steps involved with doing so, which steps were...creating the soul...and forming it's body. I also failed to mention that the ones referred to in that quote are not all men but a select kind of men. Which then introduces a thing not explained in that sentence, which is the spirit of the ones referred to. Which spirit the others among mankind do not possess in kind. Edited by Joseppi, : No reason given. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add more blank lines.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joseppi Member (Idle past 4972 days) Posts: 50 From: New Albany, In, USA Joined: |
quote:I already pointed out that the capitalization denotes OWNERSHIP. And I asked you to present a reason for the capitalization that counters the obvious meaning, which I noted, and am aware is in agreement with the whole Bible. Your argument is that it shouldn't be there. But, I see no evidence that it shouldn't. However, it stands out to me because... The heaven of verse one is singular. The heaven of verse one is where God's throne was. Thus, capitalizing the heaven where men dwell is notable. Indeed, capitalization is a notable thing in English. So, claiming it to be seemingly strange that I would note it is absurd. Edited by Joseppi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Joseppi writes:
We're not talking about distinct things running parallel though. We're talking about the same things being created, formed and made. The three different words are used in parallel for emphasis, not to indicate three different processes. Again, the principle is used all over the English and Hebrew languages. You're superimposing a lot of woo-woo interpretations that aren't supported by the text. It has meaning when two distinct things run parallel. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joseppi Member (Idle past 4972 days) Posts: 50 From: New Albany, In, USA Joined: |
quote:The subject was the making of the whole man and referred to his distinct and seperable parts. As for your claim of emphasis only. Where is the proof of that? Why would a semicolon be used to seperate that very exact same things. As I said, one does not convey meaning by saying.. I made man, I made man ; yea, I made man. But, saying in effect...Yea, I made man; I created him, and I formed him, conveys the understanding that creating a lump of clay, and then forming a lump of clay is not the same thing, (as the definitions of the words allow) and that, both of these seperable actions were indeed required to make a man.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Again, what you are saying is irrelevant to the question.
Where in Genesis 1 there is anything related to "God's intention was to eventually put his throne on earth and dwell there." Hell, where is a throne even mentioned in Genesis 1? There is not even anything in Genesis 1 about God ruling. If they are NOT in the text, then you are just making stuff up. It really is that simple. One of the interesting things about the God found in Genesis 1 is that there is NO interaction with what is created. The God found in Genesis 1 is aloof, competent, overarching, creating by an act of will alone but separate, not personal, not interacting with its creation. This is yet another difference between the fable found in Genesis 1 and the fable found in Genesis 2&3. The God found in the Genesis 2&3 fable is entirely different than the one depicted in Genesis 1. The Genesis 2&3 God is very human, personal, fumbling, often unsure, lying and even fearful but hands on, a tinkerer, learning by doing and actively involved with its creation. Those differences should be a clue that the purpose of the two fables is NOT creation itself but rather trying to describe how different people at different times viewed their relationships with the world around them, each other and the god they worshiped. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joseppi Member (Idle past 4972 days) Posts: 50 From: New Albany, In, USA Joined: |
quote:I guess we are done sharing out understandings on these chapters then. I appreciated your responsiveness but, I see no reason to discuss clues that I myself don't see in the text.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joseppi Member (Idle past 4972 days) Posts: 50 From: New Albany, In, USA Joined: |
I have to go for today. sorry for not being available very often. but, I do check in now and again. Thanks to both jar and ringo. You have not treated me nearly as awful as I thought I'd be treated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Joseppi writes:
That may be what you're talking about but it isn't what Genesis 1 and 2 are talking about. Please stop adding to the text.
The subject was the making of the whole man and referred to his distinct and seperable parts. Joseppi writes:
As I've already said, it's a common construct in both English and Hebrew. Please read the thread that I already linked or the short article that I also linked. They explain that the parallel constructs in Hebrew do not constitute fundamental differences in the meaning of the words. As for your claim of emphasis only. Where is the proof of that? If you want to claim that there are differences of meaning, the onus is on you to show the evidence. By analogy, if you want to claim that, "It's raining cats and dogs," is meant to be taken literally, the burden of proof is in you.
Joseppi writes:
As I said, the semicolon doesn't even appear in most English translations and it certainly didn't appear in the Hebrew. You can't use it to imply a difference in the meaning of the words. Why would a semicolon be used to seperate that very exact same things. The supposed distinctions are in your mind, not in the text. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English
You do realize the OT was originally written in Hebrew don't you?
Others also don't realize that the LORD God who put the Bible together speaks perfect English and specifies all his terms and meanings.
Then why are there so many conflicting variations, translations and interpretations?Which is the correct English version? and why is the one you state the correct one? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
That's fine except I was not talking about anything that is NOT in the text. If you return just ask and I will be happy to explain exactly where in the text each thing I mention can be found.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN  Suspended Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 51 Joined: |
Hi Thanks for the welcome. (I CANT)
I don’t have a degree, so I'm not sure if you are referring to me when you make that comment. Honestly I'm not particularly interested in "debating" a non negotiable non debatable topic much further, Im still waiting for the humble pie eating competition to begin in this crib and or an apology from the people who are blatantly perverting, twisting and logomachistically attempting (but failing) to destroy scripture. If you disagree with what I have said here I would prefer you to voice your views here in the first instance. But I will check out your thread and thanks for the invitation bro. You seem to be implying that I am not "spiritually discerning" the scripture here. I fundamentally take umbrage at that remark. Your comment would never be something that would pass through the lips of a "literal fundamentalist" either. 2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost The scripture has already been delivered via the discernment of the Holy Spirit, it is not open to your private interpretation or, what did you say again? Oh that’s right your disagreements. LOL I’m shaking my head in utter astonishment whilst muttering the words literal fundamentalist if you please under my breath. Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given. Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
The scripture has already been delivered via the discernment of the Holy Spirit, What version is the correct version? Do you mind enlightening us on which version of the bible is the correct version? Also, if it isn't to personal what Christian sect are you a member of? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024