Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8749 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-25-2017 2:58 AM
392 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 389 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Roshankumar1234
Post Volume:
Total: 808,986 Year: 13,592/21,208 Month: 3,074/3,605 Week: 416/933 Day: 5/56 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314151617
18
Author Topic:   Creation
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 143 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 256 of 259 (787042)
07-01-2016 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by ICANT
06-23-2016 2:47 PM


Re: translations
ICANT writes:

What changes the sound of the consonants?

the vowels you choose to pronounce them with. though biblical hebrew did not originally contain a system to write vowels, people still used them in speech, obviously.

So if we change the font to the one I am using in this message using certain fonts to represent the fonts in my avatar my KJV Bible is written in Biblical Hebrew according to arachnophilia.

no, i'm saying a script change does not equal a language change. the KJV is written in english, regardless of what script i write it in. biblical hebrew is biblical hebrew, even if i were to use the latin alphabet to represent it.

בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ

brashyt bra alhym hshmym and harts

according to archnophilia are the same thing (Biblical Hebrew), as the above line only uses a different font.

correct, minus the word "and".

though a proper transliteration (not a translation, transliteration) would be:

quote:
BR'SHYT BR' 'LHYM H-SHMYM W-ET H-'RTZ

in fact, you can find tons of older texts that represent biblical hebrew this way, due to typesetting issues. it's the same language -- the same vocabulary and grammar and syntax -- but a different alphabet.

א alef is a consonant that is pronounced as the first letter of its name.
ע ayin is a consonant that is pronounced as the first letter of its name.

incorrect, א is a glottal stop, ע is a voiced pharyngeal frictive. neither of those are "ah". they are consonantal sounds.

It only had consonants and each consonant had its own pronunciation just as our English consonants have.

each consonant had several sounds, depending context, and the vowel sound it implies. that's how abjad alef-bets work.

Not only was their handwriting a little different, they added a vowel system to the language.

i don't use capitals. you do. do you contend that the addition of capitals to your post means we are speaking in different languages. because it sure feels like it sometimes.

You and others take that vowel system and change the meaning of what was written by pointing consonants in different ways.

once again, i am arguing that we should ignore the vowels in this case, because they are wrong.

That makes the version produced by the Masoretes a different language even though they use the Jewish script.

no, try to keep up. it is a different script, but the same language.

Are you saying it would be simple for him to learn a completely new script system to replace the one he had been studying and using for nearly a hundred years?

I don't think so.

yes, learning a new script is trivial compared to learning a new language. surely you ran into this in your hebrew classes; how long did you spend studying the alef-bet? how long studying the language? what percentage of the course was devoted to each? i bet you moved past the alef-bet after the first week or so. i know i did.

and that's coming from english; our letters don't align 1:1. we don't have a letter for "sh" for instance.

You are having a very hard time learning what Moses wrote as your primary language is English. Therefore you are trying to understand what Moses wrote from a western view. In other words you are trying to make the language Moses used into English with all the problems we have with English.

no.

The language Moses used was a very simple language. It was not the convoluted mess that is called Biblical Hebrew today, which is viewed and studied from a western point of view.

"biblical hebrew today" is like saying "old english today". that doesn't make sense. biblical hebrew is the language the bible is written in. the primary biblical hebrew manuscripts we have are the masoretic text and the dead sea scrolls. the language has evolved from there, yes, but it's no longer called "biblical hebrew". it's currently called "modern hebrew".

and if you had studied any modern hebrew at all, you'd know that modern hebrew is actually much simpler. biblical hebrew as rather complex constructions of infinitives and genitive cases that moderns tends to shy away from in favor of simpler prepositions and such.

בָּרָא in Genesis 1:1.

בְּרֺא in Genesis 5:1.

What changes the part of speech of either of these verbs?

context.

There are two prefixes that will change the part of speech of a verb.

infinitive constructs do not always need prefixes. read your damned textbook or something.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by ICANT, posted 06-23-2016 2:47 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by NoNukes, posted 07-10-2016 1:26 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9541
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 257 of 259 (787332)
07-10-2016 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by arachnophilia
07-01-2016 8:41 PM


Re: translations
ICANT writes:

Are you saying it would be simple for him to learn a completely new script system to replace the one he had been studying and using for nearly a hundred years?
I don't think so.

arachnophilia writes:

yes, learning a new script is trivial compared to learning a new language. surely you ran into this in your hebrew classes; how long did you spend studying the alef-bet?

Perhaps another illustration of this principle would be Morse Code. How difficult is it to learn to read a morse code version of any english message? Answer: Not very.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by arachnophilia, posted 07-01-2016 8:41 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 9313
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 258 of 259 (809570)
05-19-2017 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by ICANT
06-23-2016 2:47 PM


Giving This Topic Another Opportunity
Lets give this topic another opportunity.

I CANT writes:

I would like to discuss what the Bible says about creation in comparison to what Science says about creation.
Since my arguments will be based on the Bible this will need to be placed in the Bible Study.

I would like to discuss one point at the time starting with creation according to what the Bible has recorded in it.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This verse tells us that "In the beginning" is when the heaven and the earth was created.

YEC's tell us that was 6 to 10 thousand years ago.

Science tells us that was 13.4 to 20 billion years in the past. Some scientist have shortened the time to 8 billion years in the past.

The Bible does not say when the beginning was, just that it was. There is no verse in the Bible that says when the beginning was.

Therefore the universe could have begun to exist at any point in past duration.

Thus the Bible and science agrees that the universe began to exist and it is old.

Once we have discussed what the bible says about the beginning to exist of the universe and the scientific view we can move on to how God might have accomplished that event.

God Bless,

I realize that this is a Bible-based thread, so I won't attempt to refute scripture with evidence...though some may choose to do so.

I like that you interpret the Bible without definite dates assigned to given events. This makes the belief that God created everything more plausible---in light of today's scientific evidence.

Personally, I am a cosmological creationist. I believe that God exists and that He is the original source for everything created. Whether or not He intervenes...specifically within human thinking...is what intrigues me these days.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by ICANT, posted 06-23-2016 2:47 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by ringo, posted 05-19-2017 12:00 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13023
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 259 of 259 (809597)
05-19-2017 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Phat
05-19-2017 8:49 AM


Re: Giving This Topic Another Opportunity
Phat writes:

I like that you interpret the Bible without definite dates assigned to given events. This makes the belief that God created everything more plausible---in light of today's scientific evidence.


Sure, leaving stuff out is a good way to make a story more plausible. The three pigs building houses is much more plausible if you neglect to mention that pigs don't have fingers.

But the Bible clearly does imply dates. The days of creation are 24-hour days, humans were created on day 6 and their genealogies are laid out fairly precisely.

It doesn't make much sense to make the Bible true by re-writing it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Phat, posted 05-19-2017 8:49 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
1314151617
18
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017