|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Cat,
Cat writes: Can you list the verses in the Bible in chronological order? I think that was done around 1100 AD. I don't know if they got the order of the verses correct or not. But I do know that Genesis 2:4 claims to be the history of the day God created the heavens and the earth. All generations list follow the declaration of these are the generations of..... Just as the one in chapter 5. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Can you list the verses in the Bible in the order in which they occurred in time?
Like this: Gen 1:1Gen 2:4 - ? Gen 1:2 - Gen 2:3 Gen 5? - ??? Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Cat,
Cat writes: Can you list the verses in the Bible in the order in which they occurred in time? Genesis 1:1 took place in the beginning whenever that was.Genesis 2:4 is the history of the day God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 2:5-4:24 is the history of the day God created the heavens and the earth and took place the same day God created the heavens and the earth. That is what the text says. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi jar,
jar writes: It is a shame that Christianity has tried to create the impression that the Bible (any of the different Canons) is actually one book with some consistent purpose. It's not. Trying to claim that Jeremiah is in anyway related to Genesis 1 or that Genesis 2&3 are related in anyway to Genesis 1 other than by being stories selected by a committee of Canon is doing the Bible a great disservice. At what time was the earth in the condition described in Jeremiah 4:23-26 according to the Bible? God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
Jar writes:
While I don't agree with jar's denigrating descriptions of divinely inspired Scripture, I agree with the gist of what he says here. The early chapters of Genesis emphasize Sabbath (and also Temple). The creation has been put into a seven-day structure in order to model the human work week and Sabbath (see Ex 20). But the Sabbath emphasis is already present in Gen 1:1 (Count the words in Hebrew; there are seven. The same thing could have been said in five words.) The fable is the justification for the Jewish week and the Sabbath. The whole of Genesis 1 through Genesis 2:4 is where the week and the Sabbath are created. On each of six days the god character works and on the seventh day the god character does no work. Each day begins with evening and runs trough the night and the next daylight or as it is named in the story "Day" But "a day" the period of time, is a Night and a Day. The Jewish week is composed of seven days, each begins at sundown and runs until the next sundown. On six consecutive days Jews work but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, they can do no work. In addition, there is a Temple emphasis in the first few chapters of Genesis. As some biblical scholars have noted, Eden seems to be a sort of cosmic temple. Man is told to "tend and keep" the garden; these same verbs are used of priestly temple duties later.
jar writes:
I disagree; there's a LOT more in the text than this! That is all there is in Genesis 1.
For one thing, there is a strong polemic against pagan sun and moon gods. After the strong emphasis on "naming" things in the first three days, the sun and moon are buried in the middle of the account (on day 4) and are NOT named, but just described as the "greater" and the "lesser" lights. This "dissing" of the sun and moon stresses the fact that they are merely created objects, not deities. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi kbertsche
kbertsche writes: What makes them proper nouns is the fact that they are names for things. The text says that God called (קָרָא ) the light "Day". If you look up קָרָא in BDB, you'll see under the Qal stem:
quote:. What happened to the first 5 definitions. Biblical Hebrew OverviewA noun is the name of a person, place, or thing. Properties 1) Gender, 2) number, 3)person, 4) case. I don't find anything about proper nouns. Why is it that most people today that talk about Biblical Hebrew want to make it a modern language. It has been dead for over 2,000 years."John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi kbertsche
kbertsche writes: I agree; Gen 1 is narrative, not poetry. But it is highly stylized and highly structured narrative. Although it is not poetry, it contains numerous poetic elements such as imagery, figures of speech, and repetition. Genesis 1 and Genesis 1:1 are two different things. Genesis 1:1 is a complete declarative statement of completed action by God producing the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:2-2:3 is the story of God repairing damage caused to the earth by an unknown cause. God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
I don't find anything about proper nouns. As I have remarked to you on previous occasions, saying you cannot 'find' something is not an argument. In this case what you appear to be doing is simply declaring a hole in your own knowledge. I recall that you advanced a similar 'argument' to claim that you could not find a description of gravity as the warpring of space-time by mass despite the fact that I provided you with three article references and a textbook stating exactly that principle. I can easily find references to proper nouns in ancient Hebrew in the following places: http://www.hebrew4christians.com/..._construct_relation.html Hebrew Bible & Ancient Near Eastern Studies (HBANES) | Near Eastern Languages & Civilization | University of Washington http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/lessons_14.html Category:Hebrew nouns - Wiktionary And in many other places. It turns out that proper nouns in ancient languages are both distinct from indefinite nouns, and are defined pretty much the same way we define them in English.
Why is it that most people today that talk about Biblical Hebrew want to make it a modern language. Why is it that one self described expert fails to notice that even ancient folks had definite names for person, places and things? Beyond that, I am sure everyone noticed that nothing you have posted refutes the point kbertsche actually made. Namely that the term day is used both to refer to the daylight of a day and to the entire 24 period including evening and morning. Can I resume that you have no response to that question other than to admit your own lack of knowledge within a topic on which you claim to be proficient? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Genesis 1:2-2:3 is the story of God repairing damage caused to the earth by an unknown cause. Unknown cause? Neither cause nor effect is described in the text. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2152 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ICANT writes:
They are there in BDB, as you can check. They are variations of "to call, proclaim", which is the main meaning of the word. But for its use in the first three days of Gen 1, definition 6 is the appropriate one.
kbertsche writes:
.
What makes them proper nouns is the fact that they are names for things. The text says that God called (קָרָא ) the light "Day". If you look up קָרָא in BDB, you'll see under the Qal stem:
quote: What happened to the first 5 definitions. ICANT writes:
Biblical Hebrew OverviewA noun is the name of a person, place, or thing. Properties 1) Gender, 2) number, 3)person, 4) case. I don't find anything about proper nouns. Why is it that most people today that talk about Biblical Hebrew want to make it a modern language. It has been dead for over 2,000 years.
I assume you have a copy of "GKC" (Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar)? I believe it is public domain and is available online in a few places. It has a section on "proper names":
quote: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 369 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined:
|
But when it comes to the actual beginning to exist of the universe science is silent. That is because science does not make proclamations that it cannot support with evidence. This is in sharp contrast to what creation stories do.
Science can go only so far back in time and it comes to a place where the math will not work so nothing can be seen past that point. And that is a fact. If we cannot see then we cannot see. Speculation, while useful, is a poor substitute for observation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
ICANT writes: At what time was the earth in the condition described in Jeremiah 4:23-26 according to the Bible? According to the Bible that state that exists in Jeremiah 4:23-26 only exists in that passage and it is not referring to a beginning but a threatened ending, a period of destruction. That is the great error of quote mining, to loose context and meaning. That passage itself shows it is not referring to Genesis 1 since it talks of cities being torn down and fruitful places made desolate. The passage goes on:
quote: The Bible is not one book, not one story but an anthology of anthologies and should not be treated as one thing with one purpose.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
kb writes: jar writes:
I disagree; there's a LOT more in the text than this! That is all there is in Genesis 1.
For one thing, there is a strong polemic against pagan sun and moon gods. After the strong emphasis on "naming" things in the first three days, the sun and moon are buried in the middle of the account (on day 4) and are NOT named, but just described as the "greater" and the "lesser" lights. This "dissing" of the sun and moon stresses the fact that they are merely created objects, not deities. You are right; I should have said, as I have in other posts in this thread, "That is all that is created in Genesis 1." And you raise a good point, one I have tried to make many times here at EvC when dealing with Genesis 1 as well as Genesis 2&3, there are other important things in the stories. Your point about the sun and moon not being named is a great example. There is also the god described in Genesis 1 that is entirely different than the God found in the earlier Genesis 2&3 tale. The god character in Genesis 1 is far more sophisticated then the somewhat bumbling god of Genesis 2&3; it is supremely competent, creating by thought alone, overarching, methodical, sure, but also aloof, apart and not interacting with the creation. I have long been fascinated by two facts, that the younger story was placed first and that no attempt was made to make the two creation myths jib. I have reached a tentative conclusion on those issues but that may be better in another thread.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Genesis 1:1 took place in the beginning whenever that was. Genesis 2:4 is the history of the day God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 2:5-4:24 is the history of the day God created the heavens and the earth and took place the same day God created the heavens and the earth. That is what the text says. Where does the text say to omit Gen 4:25-26 from the history of that day? So this is how it goes: Gen 1:1Gen 2:4 - Gen 4:24or26 Gen 1:2 - Gen 2:3 Then it goes to Gen 5?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
ICANT writes: Genesis 1:1 took place in the beginning whenever that was. There appear to be uncountable ways to look at the text, all of which are at least self-consistent. I personally have always looked at Genesis 1:1 as an introduction to Genesis, similar in construct to the "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..." in a Tale of Two Cities. I don't think there are any real strong cues forcing my interpretation, but in my opinion, the interpretation seems to work. On the other hand, ICANT's interpretation requires making up stuff. The universe was created in 1:1, and then silently fell apart before 1:2? Where does that come from? Then a complete denial that day 4 is part of creation? No creation week then? ICANT claims that the ancient Hebrew used in 1:1 absolutely requires his reading. I think ICANT's reading comes from an attempt to manage some kind of consistency with science. He buttresses his reading with an appeal to expertise in ancient Hebrew. But any of us who have seen his debates with other people having some knowledge understand that his language interpretation arguments quickly devolve into a kind of numerology with meaning swinging from hinges that are fastened in a door frame of ambiguity. Defending OEC based on a literal reading of the text requires a far greater straining against the text than does defending YEC. In fact I have seen many atheist on these forums express the opinion that YECs are at least sincere about their reading of the Bible as compared to OEC. Of course being a YEC absolutely requires denial of current reality. Neither approach is viable in my opinion. Genesis 1 and 2 are written by someone who may or may not have been capable of smelting iron. Some things written therein don't seem to be right. Is that really surprising? Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024