|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 2/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5036 days) Posts: 14 From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN writes:
That isn't likely to happen, since the OP has been substantiated pretty well. We're into the second or third rehash already, with new "defenders" arriving periodically to drag out the same old same old apologetics. Im not getting into that smoke screen diversion in this joke of a thread with you jokers until at least one joker admits the error of their ways regarding the OP. At least your approach is different, if not exactly refreshing. By screaming incoherent demands instead of addressing the topic at all, you're demonstrating your (lack of) position. Thank you for not being on my side. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN writes:
Everything you said in those two posts has been covered. The timing in Genesis 2 is implicit. Of note of course, my blowing of this pathetic Original Post out of the water has been completely ignored. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN writes:
Have you read the thread? It was pointed out some time ago that the default chronology in English is the order of narration. It was also pointed out that the same applies to Hebrew. Ergo, if somebody claims a different order for the events of Genesis 2 than the order of narration, the onus is on him to show evidence for a different order. So far, nobody has done that. There are a couple of potential meanings that can be taken from your use of the word implicit, we can see here what the word means, but I have no idea what you mean in your uses of the word as it applies to either agreeing and defending the OP and or refuting the fact that I have soundly refuted this silly OP. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN writes:
I have no axe to grind. I don't particularly care whether the OP stands or falls but I think it has been well-supported in the thread. I don't think it has been refuted.
Im sorry are you in support of the OP or opposed to it? NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN writes:
The default chronology is the one you use when none is specified. As you and several others before you have pointed out, Genesis 1 has an explicit chronology built into it but Genesis 2 does not. While your at please explain to me what "default chronology" means, but only if you think some one as daft as me will be able to understand you. However, you and several others before you make the mistake of assuming a priori that the two accounts must tally so the chronology of Genesis 1 applies. Unfortunately, there is no reason to make that assumption. In English and in Hebrew, when no chronology is specified, the order of narration is considered to be the order of events. If you want to claim that that is not true for Genesis 2, you have to provide compelling evidence for that claim. A desire to make the two accounts coincide does not count as evidence. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN writes:
Please be specific. Explain any contradiction that you see. As you said yourself, it might just be your misunderstanding. In that case it would appear that what you are saying is in stark contradiction of itself. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN writes:
At face value, the accounts in Genesis 1 and genesis 2 are different, so the "outlandish" viewpoint is the one that claims they're not different. That said is there anyone who is willing to provide proof, primary evidence, supporting documents or what ever else you "scientists" demand from the Bible believers as admissible evidence for your outlandish claims? Is the Big Bad Wolf in the story of the Three Little Pigs the same as the Big Bad Wolf in Little Red Riding Hood? Are the man and woman in Genesis 2 the same as the men and women in Genesis 1? Every point of difference needs to be addressed as if it was a contradiction. The onus is on you to show that the differences are not contradictory. But more important, the question is: Do the differences mean that the Bible is errant? You seem to have missed the point that some of us are arguing no. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN writes:
The order of events is different, obviously. I said "different", not "contradictory". Different is a given.
On face value they are not different so please provide some evidence that proves and or supporst you calim that they are different on face value. NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN writes:
You've done no such thing. You've rehashed points that have been rebutted earlier in the thread. You've contributed nothing new. I have proved that they are not different. The orders of events are different. That doesn't necessarily make the stories incompatible. Even if they are incompatible, that doesn't necessarily make the Bible errant. "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN writes:
You still seem to be misunderstanding what's happening here. There is no question that the stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are different. If they were the same, there would be no point to presenting it twice. You need to provide evidence that clearly proves that G1 and G2 are two separate/different accounts. That isn't the question at all. The question is: What are the implications of two different stories being presented side by side? Clearly, the writers/compilers of Genesis were not uncomfortable with including both stories. The question is: Why not? "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024