Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2017 7:45 AM
390 online now:
14174dm, Chiroptera, NoNukes, Percy (Admin), Pressie (5 members, 385 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,318 Year: 9,924/21,208 Month: 3,011/2,674 Week: 435/961 Day: 51/114 Hour: 2/10

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
18Next
Author Topic:   Creation
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 181 of 257 (783718)
05-08-2016 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by arachnophilia
05-07-2016 10:01 PM


Re: there is no gap in or after genesis 1:1
Hi arach

arach writes:

בְּרֵאשִׁית has a construct ending,

Where can I find a list of construct endings?

For a noun to be in the construct there must be one noun followed by a second noun. The first noun is in the construct

arach writes:

where it's tied in a construct pair, רֵאשִׁית מַמְלַכְתּוֹ, "the beginning of his kingdom".

Here you have a noun following a noun and that makes a construct chain placing the first noun beginning in construct making your translation of Genesis 10:10 almost correct. But you forgot the conjunction.

In Genesis 1:1 you have a noun followed by a verb, followed by a noun, followed by the sign of the direct object, followed by a noun, followed by the sign of the direct object, followed by a noun.

There are no two nouns in a chain to form a construct chain.

arach writes:

where it's tied in a construct pair, , "the beginning of his kingdom". obviously this poses a problem as written, because here has the incorrect niqudot, and should be pointed as an infinitive construct as in genesis 5:1,

But Biblical Hebrew had no vowels.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by arachnophilia, posted 05-07-2016 10:01 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by arachnophilia, posted 05-08-2016 3:07 AM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 182 of 257 (783720)
05-08-2016 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by herebedragons
05-06-2016 8:55 AM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Hi herebedragons

herebedragons writes:

Also you skip all of Genesis 1 after verse 2 in your chronology. Why?

I did not skip anything.

I only got to the darkness found at Genesis 1:2 which had ended the light period of 'day one', in which all the things I mention took place.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by herebedragons, posted 05-06-2016 8:55 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 114 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 183 of 257 (783721)
05-08-2016 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by ICANT
05-08-2016 1:40 AM


Re: there is no gap in or after genesis 1:1
ICANT writes:

Where can I find a list of construct endings?

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/..._construct_relation.html

granted, this is a slightly irregular one. but it's a construct suffix.

For a noun to be in the construct there must be one noun followed by a second noun. The first noun is in the construct

correct.

In Genesis 1:1 you have a noun followed by a verb,

incorrect. in genesis 1:1, you have a noun followed by a noun; the verb is an infinitive. and it must be a noun, because to preceding word is in the construct state. you can't have a construct state with a noun and a verb, and one word here is beginning a construct, so the other has to be a noun. meaning the verb is an infinitive: a verb functioning as a noun.

this is pretty common, actually. the construct noun in gen 10:10 above is actually constructed out of a verb as well, but that form's common enough we just count it as a noun.

There are no two nouns in a chain to form a construct chain.

again, incorrect. because the first noun is in a construct state, the second word must be a noun.

But Biblical Hebrew had no vowels.

correct. this means the mistake belongs to the masoretes, who added the niqudot. read without niqudot, you'd just read it like you read it in gen 5:1, as an infinitive, a verb functioning as a noun.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by ICANT, posted 05-08-2016 1:40 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by ICANT, posted 05-08-2016 9:24 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24414
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 184 of 257 (783727)
05-08-2016 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by ICANT
05-07-2016 11:16 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Well, thanks for spelling all that out. I can see there's no point in trying to persuade you out of it, but I'm not sure why you seem to want to persuade others into it. It's obviously just your own mistaken reading of the Bible when you were only ten years old, your own personal reading that is shared by no one else, right? You come up with two human creations which is similar to jar's two different creation stories. I see one man, I see one creation, the same man and the same creation described in both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, and so do most theologians.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by ICANT, posted 05-07-2016 11:16 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by ICANT, posted 05-08-2016 9:09 AM Faith has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 185 of 257 (783736)
05-08-2016 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Faith
05-08-2016 5:09 AM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Hi Faith

Faith writes:

You come up with two human creations which is similar to jar's two different creation stories. I see one man, I see one creation, the same man and the same creation described in both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, and so do most theologians.

No.

Mankind was created in Genesis 1:27.

A man was formed from the dust of the ground. Genesis 2:7.

There was only one creation of modern mankind.

jar is correct in a way. There is a creation story in Genesis 1:1 and it's history recorded in Genesis 2:5 through 4:26.

Most Hebrew Scholars agree that there is 2 stories.

But the story in Genesis 1:2 through 2:3 has only 2 creation events in it. The fish in Genesis 1:21 and the mankind in Genesis 1:27.

I know you believe that there is only one story.

But how do you reconcile that in Genesis 2:7 the man is formed from the dust of the ground before any other living creature and the mankind created in Genesis 1:27 is created on the sixth day after all other living creatures.

Since you dismiss my presentation as the misguided beliefs of a young child why not take my message you are replying too and go event by event and show me where the Bible does not say what I say it says.

If you are correct and I am wrong that should be a very easy task.

Humor a little child's belief.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Faith, posted 05-08-2016 5:09 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by jar, posted 05-08-2016 9:23 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 05-08-2016 1:19 PM ICANT has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28667
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 186 of 257 (783738)
05-08-2016 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by ICANT
05-08-2016 9:09 AM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
ICANT writes:

jar is correct in a way. There is a creation story in Genesis 1:1 and it's history recorded in Genesis 2:5 through 4:26.

Most Hebrew Scholars agree that there is 2 stories.

But that is not what jar actually says.

jar says that the two stories, Genesis 1 and the story in Genesis 2&3 are two separate unrelated tales written by different cultures at entirely different times and unrelated to Moses if Moses even existed and that creation in the stories is nothing but a plot device like the two different God characters and that what is created in Genesis 1 is the justification for how the Hebrews will determine days, weeks and a Sabbath.

Let's get that right.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by ICANT, posted 05-08-2016 9:09 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by ICANT, posted 05-08-2016 9:27 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 187 of 257 (783739)
05-08-2016 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by arachnophilia
05-08-2016 3:07 AM


Re: there is no gap in or after genesis 1:1
Hi arach

arch writes:

incorrect. in genesis 1:1, you have a noun followed by a noun; the verb is an infinitive.

What makes a kal perfect verb a noun?

A verb has to have a suffix added to it to make it a noun.

Your reference shows a noun followed by a noun.

arach writes:

because to preceding word is in the construct state.

But the first noun is not in the construct state because it has a feminine suffix ending on it.

arach writes:

the construct noun in gen 10:10 above is actually constructed out of a verb as well, but that form's common enough we just count it as a noun.

But most all nouns are constructed out of verbs.

arach writes:

the construct noun in gen 10:10 above is actually constructed out of a verb as well, but that form's common enough we just count it as a noun.

Your circular reasoning will not get the job done.

You say the first noun is in the construct but there is no noun following it to make it into the construct. Yet the verb following the noun must be a noun as the first noun is in the construct.

That is a vicious circle.

Give me a list of suffixes that makes a noun in the construct.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by arachnophilia, posted 05-08-2016 3:07 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by arachnophilia, posted 05-08-2016 12:49 PM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5563
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 188 of 257 (783741)
05-08-2016 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by jar
05-08-2016 9:23 AM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Hi jar,

jar writes:

Let's get that right.

jar believes there are 2 stories regardless of what he believes they are about.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by jar, posted 05-08-2016 9:23 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by arachnophilia, posted 05-08-2016 1:15 PM ICANT has responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1359
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 189 of 257 (783748)
05-08-2016 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by arachnophilia
05-07-2016 10:01 PM


Re: there is no gap in or after genesis 1:1
Arach writes:

in fact, it does not tell us this. genesis 1:1 reads,

quote:

בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.


בְּרֵאשִׁית has a construct ending, had it meant "in the beginning," comma, the word here would be בתאשונה. the ית- here ties to the next word in a construct chain. see for instance, genesis 10:10,

Arach, you and I discussed this in detail a few years ago. I agree with you and Rashi that the first word ( בְּרֵאשִׁית ) could be in construct. The shortened vowel under the preposition suggests this, in fact.

But as ICANT said, if the first word is in construct, the next word ( בָּרָא ) must be a noun. But it's not a noun; it is a finite verb (Qal perfect, 3rd person masculine singular). For you and Rashi to be correct requires a change in the vowel points on ( בָּרָא ). This word is not voweled as an infinitive, as it must be for you and Rashi to be correct. How do you explain this?

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by arachnophilia, posted 05-07-2016 10:01 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by arachnophilia, posted 05-08-2016 12:55 PM kbertsche has responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 114 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 190 of 257 (783754)
05-08-2016 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by ICANT
05-08-2016 9:24 AM


Re: there is no gap in or after genesis 1:1
ICANT writes:

What makes a kal perfect verb a noun?

when it's an infinitive.

A verb has to have a suffix added to it to make it a noun.

incorrect. look at the other verse i gave you:

quote:
זֶה סֵפֶר תֹּולְדֹת אָדָם בְּיֹום בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם בִּדְמוּת אֱלֹהִים עָשָׂה אֹתֹֽו׃

what tense is בְּרֹא here? does it have a suffix?

But the first noun is not in the construct state because it has a feminine suffix ending on it.

it is in the construct state, as rashi shows. that suffix is only used for construct pairs; if it were indefinite, it would say בראשונה

Your circular reasoning will not get the job done. You say the first noun is in the construct but there is no noun following it to make it into the construct. Yet the verb following the noun must be a noun as the first noun is in the construct. That is a vicious circle.

no, it's not. it proceeds linearly: the first word as a construct suffix, so it's in construct with the next word. the new word has to be a noun.

Give me a list of suffixes that makes a noun in the construct.

i did. here it is again: http://www.hebrew4christians.com/..._construct_relation.html


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by ICANT, posted 05-08-2016 9:24 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by ICANT, posted 05-08-2016 4:46 PM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 201 by ICANT, posted 05-09-2016 12:59 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 114 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 191 of 257 (783755)
05-08-2016 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by kbertsche
05-08-2016 11:10 AM


Re: there is no gap in or after genesis 1:1
kbertsche writes:

I agree with you and Rashi that the first word ( בְּרֵאשִׁית ) could be in construct. The shortened vowel under the preposition suggests this, in fact.

it does.

But as ICANT said, if the first word is in construct, the next word ( בָּרָא ) must be a noun. But it's not a noun; it is a finite verb (Qal perfect, 3rd person masculine singular). For you and Rashi to be correct requires a change in the vowel points on ( בָּרָא ). This word is not an infinitive, as it must be for you and Rashi to be correct. How do you explain this?

the simplest explanation is that vowels are incorrect. the consonants were written around 2,500 years ago, and the vowels only added some 1,000 years ago. there's a 1,500+ year gap between when the author of genesis 1:1 wrote, and when someone added points this consonants. and here, the points are incoherent and inconsistent. if you read the text without vowels, you'd read it as a infinitive, and the text existed that way for a long time before the masoretes got ahold of it.

we already know that the masoretes added incorrect points elsewhere intentionally, based on how they though the texts should be read, rather than what they thought the authors actually meant. for instance, they fairly consistently mis-point the name of god. it's entirely possible that they mis-pointed the text here as well to represent their doctrine.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by kbertsche, posted 05-08-2016 11:10 AM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by kbertsche, posted 05-08-2016 1:48 PM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 202 by ICANT, posted 05-09-2016 1:02 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 114 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 192 of 257 (783756)
05-08-2016 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by ICANT
05-08-2016 9:27 AM


two stories
ICANT writes:

jar believes there are 2 stories regardless of what he believes they are about.

there are definitely two stories. the first one begins,

quote:
בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.

when god began to create the heaven and the earth...


and ends,

quote:
אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ, בְּהִבָּרְאָם

these are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created


see the framing device? the second one begins,

quote:
בְּיוֹם, עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים--אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם.

when yahweh god made earth and heaven


notice the similar structure to genesis 1:1. complex preposition and infinitive verb in a construct state, beginning a subordinate clause, with the next sentence going on to describe an initial state, and then the first actions.

the second story doesn't have a clear bookend like that, because it's part of a larger work. for all intents and purposes, it ends here:

quote:
אָז הוּחַל, לִקְרֹא בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה

the two stories have entirely different focuses and theological agendas. gen 1 wants to show us a god who creates perfectly, without error, and plans everything ahead for his perfect creation. he creates man and woman without strife, and commands them to get busy copulating/populating. and moreover, gen 1 is part of the P source which is concerned with timekeeping and genealogies. gen 1, for P, sets up shabbat and provides an explanation for it, and the reason we have for time being ordered as it is.

note that if you skip directly from gen 2:3a to gen 5:1 (the next P text), it doesn't seem like you've missed anything. P is telling a different story from J.

J's story, gen 2:4b to 4:26, tells us about a god who makes mistakes. he forms man first, to tend his garden, and brings animals to him in the hopes of finding him a mate. when that's not good enough, he splits the man in two and makes a woman out of him. and they get into trouble, taking something of god's -- apparently his creative knowledge. note that sexuality is a theme in these three chapters, with the knowledge immediately making them ashamed of their genitals, their punishments all relating the family structure, and that when they leave eden, the man knows his wife, she conceives, and says that she has taken a man from yahweh. so here you have the etiologies for marriage, sexuality, and family struggles.

you can see why, when P covers this, he chooses to leave some of this out, and gloss over other parts, making them more perfect.

while we're here, there's actually a third story that's missing, possibly part of J, where yahweh battles and kills leviathan. it's attested to in other hebrew literature, like job and psalm 74.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by ICANT, posted 05-08-2016 9:27 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by ICANT, posted 05-09-2016 1:11 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24414
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 193 of 257 (783757)
05-08-2016 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by ICANT
05-08-2016 9:09 AM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Mankind was created in Genesis 1:27.

A man was formed from the dust of the ground. Genesis 2:7.

There was only one creation of modern mankind.

jar is correct in a way. There is a creation story in Genesis 1:1 and it's history recorded in Genesis 2:5 through 4:26.

Most Hebrew Scholars agree that there is 2 stories.

But the story in Genesis 1:2 through 2:3 has only 2 creation events in it. The fish in Genesis 1:21 and the mankind in Genesis 1:27.

I read it to say everything was created by the end of Genesis 1, and Genesis 2:1 pronounces it all finished.

I know you believe that there is only one story.

But how do you reconcile that in Genesis 2:7 the man is formed from the dust of the ground before any other living creature and the mankind created in Genesis 1:27 is created on the sixth day after all other living creatures.

I read it to say that Genesis 1 is about the order of the Creation, the series of steps from one created thing to another; and Genesis 2 is a focused discussion, including the detail of the mist that watered the earth, and especially the creation of humanity, where the order of things isn't relevant. So Genesis 2:7 is saying HOW the man was formed -- from the dust of the ground -- and it's not about WHEN the man was formed -- that was dealt with in Genesis 1.

Since you dismiss my presentation as the misguided beliefs of a young child why not take my message you are replying too and go event by event and show me where the Bible does not say what I say it says.

Because it's possible to get all kinds of things out of the Bible if a person has a mind to and all one can argue is that this or that interpretation is more reasonable than another, and that's the hardest kind of argument there is. Also as the previous discussion on this thread shows it's a very lengthy argument and it involves referencing many other parts of the Bible. I'm just not up to that on this particular subject. Especially since I know nothing about Hebrew. If I have to consider the Hebrew I'm going to trust more seasoned theologians than anybody at EvC.

As for dismissing your argument, I also dismiss jar's, because both are basically the interpretations of a single person and seem to be imposing modern assumptions about how we would write history on the ancient writers. I just saw that arach has two stories and two different Gods so of course I'm going to dismiss his argument too. I'm not sure about Gap Theory yet, I do think it's interesting to consider that there might have been a creation prior to the six days of Genesis 1 in which the drama of Lucifer plays out. I have no reason to expect it will change anything I think about evolution or Geology or the Flood because all that is easily accounted for from Genesis 1:2 on. I've been reading Barnhouse but I think I'm going to switch over to Pember.

If you are correct and I am wrong that should be a very easy task.

Not in my experience.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by ICANT, posted 05-08-2016 9:09 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by arachnophilia, posted 05-08-2016 2:21 PM Faith has responded
 Message 204 by ICANT, posted 05-09-2016 1:28 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1359
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 194 of 257 (783758)
05-08-2016 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by arachnophilia
05-08-2016 12:55 PM


Re: there is no gap in or after genesis 1:1
Arach writes:


the simplest explanation is that vowels are incorrect. the consonants were written around 2,500 years ago, and the vowels only added some 1,000 years ago. there's a 1,500+ year gap between when the author of genesis 1:1 wrote, and when someone added points this consonants. and here, the points are incoherent and inconsistent. if you read the text without vowels, you'd read it as a infinitive, and the text existed that way for a long time before the masoretes got ahold of it.


I think we can agree that the voweling of at least one of the first two words is either non-standard or wrong. But which one? You would re-vowel the second word ( בָּרָא ). I would re-vowel the first word ( בְּרֵאשִׁית ), or at least take it as non-standard grammar.

Why do you think it is the second, not the first word, which should be re-voweled?

Arach writes:

we already know that the masoretes added incorrect points elsewhere intentionally, based on how they though the texts should be read, rather than what they thought the authors actually meant. for instance, they fairly consistently mis-point the name of god. it's entirely possible that they mis-pointed the text here as well to represent their doctrine.


But there is no mystery as to the re-voweling of YHWH. This a "ketiv-qere" issue. The consonants are YHWH, but to avoid pronouncing the name of God, the word is read as "Elohim". Thus the vowels for YHWH were changed to be the vowels for "Elohim" [ABE: I should have written "Adonai", not "Elohim", as Arach noted] which is what is actually read.

Getting back to the main topic, here is a quote from Word Biblical Commentary on the translation of Gen 1:1:

quote:

Comment

1-3 In the beginning God created. The stark simplicity of this, the traditional translation, disguises a complex and protracted debate about the correct interpretation of vv 13. Four possible understandings of the syntax of these verses have been defended.

1. V 1 is a temporal clause subordinate to the main clause in v 2: In the beginning when God created . . . , the earth was without form.. . .
2. V 1 is a temporal clause subordinate to the main clause in v 3 (v 2 is a parenthetic comment). In the beginning when God created . . . (now the earth was formless) God said.. . .
3. V 1 is a main clause, summarizing all the events described in vv 231. It is a title to the chapter as a whole, and could be rendered In the beginning God was the creator of heaven and earth. What being creator of heaven and earth means is then explained in more detail in vv 231.
4. V 1 is a main clause describing the first act of creation. Vv 2 and 3 describe subsequent phases in Gods creative activity. This is the traditional view adopted in our translation.

Theologically these different translations are of great consequence, for apart from #4, the translations all presuppose the existence of chaotic preexistent matter before the work of creation began. The arguments for and against these translations must now be reviewed.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by arachnophilia, posted 05-08-2016 12:55 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by arachnophilia, posted 05-08-2016 2:11 PM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 200 by kbertsche, posted 05-08-2016 6:36 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 114 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 195 of 257 (783760)
05-08-2016 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by kbertsche
05-08-2016 1:48 PM


Re: there is no gap in or after genesis 1:1
kbertsche writes:

I think we can agree that the voweling of at least one of the first two words is either non-standard or wrong. But which one? You would re-vowel the second word ( בָּרָא ). I would re-vowel the first word ( בְּרֵאשִׁית ), or at least take it as non-standard grammar.

Why do you think it is the second, not the first word, which should be re-voweled?

because re-voweling the second word solves the problem, re-voweling the first does not. regardless of vowels, בְּרֵאשִׁית still has a construct ending with its consonants. read without vowels, you would naturally read the next word as an infinitive. the vowels should reflect the intuitive reading.

But there is no mystery as to the re-voweling of YHWH. This a "ketiv-qere" issue. The consonants are YHWH, but to avoid pronouncing the name of God, the word is read as "Elohim". Thus the vowels for YHWH were changed to be the vowels for "Elohim", which is what is actually read.

"adonai" usually. there's not really much mystery here either, as removing the vowels clears everything up. ignore them entirely, and you end up with a fairly straightforward grammar.

quote:
Theologically these different translations are of great consequence, for apart from #4, the translations all presuppose the existence of chaotic preexistent matter before the work of creation began.

which would be similar to every other ancient near eastern creation story. i'd suggest finding harry orlinsky's notes on the new translation of the torah, there's several pages devoted to this iirc.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by kbertsche, posted 05-08-2016 1:48 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by ICANT, posted 05-09-2016 1:38 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
18Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017